Oral Answers to Questions

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Fireworks

Joan Humble: What action her Department is taking to enforce safety legislation associated with fireworks.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The safety of fireworks is governed by the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997. Enforcement is the responsibility of the trading standards service. Display and storage of fireworks are controlled by local authorities under the Health and Safety Executive's Explosives Act 1875.

Joan Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for that long list of measures, but is not the best way of enforcing the safety regulations to tackle the antisocial behaviour that is all too often associated with fireworks? Will he ensure that those regulations, and the new regulations announced by the Secretary of State, will be strictly enforced to ensure the safety of both people and pets?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I wholeheartedly agree. I think that the House owes a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), who introduced the Fireworks Bill as a private Member's Bill. It is important to tackle antisocial behaviour, which is why we are pleased that the regulations will ban under-18s from having fireworks in public places and double the penalties imposed on those throwing fireworks. I think that those measures accord with our strategy to deal with antisocial behaviour.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that nowadays there is widespread ignorance as to who Guy Fawkes was? Apparently, the most popular candidates for the bonfire this year are President George Bush and the about-to-be-crowned leader of the Conservative party.
	On a more serious note, on the basis of the introduction of the new Fireworks Act 2003—which he commended—will the Minister ensure that the regulations directly target safety issues and the nuisance and distress caused to people and animals in a way that does not needlessly destroy businesses and jobs, and enables people to carry on enjoying fireworks in a responsible manner?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about safety. This year's safety campaign concerned sparklers. At first people did not think that appropriate, but last year 80 children were injured by sparklers, which reach a temperature of 1,000° C, 10 times the boiling point of water. They are in fact very dangerous.
	We must make sure that schoolchildren and young people are aware of the dangers of fireworks. We need a balance between regulation and ensuring that we do not affect businesses, but the safety issues are important. I am pleased that many local authorities, police forces and fire authorities have worked together to try to get the safety message across.

Bob Laxton: I hope that the new regulations prove effective. I suspect that the number of complaints about the effects of fireworks has, if anything, been greater this year than in earlier years. If the regulations prove ineffective, what prospect will there be of a total ban on the sale of fireworks other than for publicly organised events?

Gerry Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend is entitled to his view, but I hope that he will join us in trying to ensure that the regulations do work, because they provide for dramatic improvements in safety and reductions in antisocial behaviour. I hope that he will concentrate on that aspect and work with stakeholders in his constituency. Let us see if the regulations work first; if they do not, we shall have to return to the issue.

Chris Grayling: While there is much to welcome in the Fireworks Act, can the Minister assure us that the Government will not use the section referring to potential licensing to introduce regulations requiring every local primary school, guides group or scouts group that holds an annual display to engage in a complicated licensing process?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not happen. The licensing regime will concentrate on the sale of fireworks. At present there is a registration scheme for shops. The idea is to establish a licensing scheme to prevent any abuse of the rules on selling fireworks to young people.

Deprived Areas

Andy Burnham: What action she is taking to help enterprise in deprived areas.

Patricia Hewitt: My Department promotes the development of small enterprises and investment by larger firms, particularly in the assisted areas.

Andy Burnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some recent manufacturing losses have involved low-value, high-volume products, often in some of our most deprived areas? The physical inheritance of those areas from their industrial past—the mills and the pits—means that they are among the hardest to regenerate. I welcome the successful regeneration of northern cities, and I welcome the great northern cities that we now have; but does the Minister think there is a case for commissioning a special study, along with the northern regional development agencies, to investigate what more can be done to regenerate hard-to-reach northern towns?

Patricia Hewitt: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the loss of, in particular, traditional manufacturing areas in some of the most disadvantaged towns, including those in his constituency. Let me draw his attention, however, to what we have already been able to do, in his constituency and more generally in the north-west, through regional selective assistance and the grants—which I know he welcomed—to Patak's Foods and, more recently, Corbett Packaging, which is relocating in his constituency. Those are good examples of our commitment to modern manufacturing and to the securing of good jobs, especially in our most disadvantaged communities.

John Bercow: Given that in his Budget speech on 9 April the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about adding to the incentives for small business creation, and that, whatever the merits of individual measures, the sea of regulation is now deeper and more hazardous than any with which business has previously had to contend, can the right hon. Lady now tell me and the House what assessment she has made of the merits of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 in the United States?

Patricia Hewitt: I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's contributions about red tape, but in response to the rather difficult and confused metaphor that he used, I have to say that he is wrong. The number of regulations each year that impose a cost on business has fallen since 1996, and we have taken a number of steps—simplifying the VAT regime, for instance—to make life simpler and easier for small business. The hon. Gentleman referred to some good examples of practice in the United States; we did indeed look at that and learned from it in creating and strengthening the Better Regulation Task Force and our whole system of regulatory scrutiny. That is why the OECD says that we have one of the best regulation and regulatory reform regimes in the world.

George Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that enterprise in a deprived area such as mine remains heavily dependent on the fortunes of the pottery industry, which in turn heavily depends on exports? In that context, does she share my concern about the 30 per cent. tariff on pottery imports from the United Kingdom to the United States? That swingeing tariff is having a very detrimental effect. Will she look into it with some degree of urgency, and make the necessary representations to her colleagues in the European Union?

Patricia Hewitt: Yes, of course I will. My hon. Friend raises an important point, and he will know, as do other hon. Members, of the enormous efforts that we have made to deal with the unlawful tariffs that the United States has imposed on imports of our steel—a matter on which we shall soon have the final ruling from the World Trade Organisation. The tariffs on pottery imports into the United States are a real hindrance to companies in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere, which have quite enough problems to contend with already. I shall certainly see what we can do to help, both bilaterally and within the WTO.

Fireworks

Phil Sawford: What steps she has taken to control the sale and use of fireworks.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 prohibit the supply of consumer-type fireworks to those under 18 years of age. They also prohibit the supply of dangerous types of fireworks to the general public—bangers, fireworks of erratic flight and so on. Under the Fireworks Act 2003, we will regulate to make it an offence for under-18s to possess fireworks in a public place, and to prohibit the possession of category 4 fireworks by any person other than a professional. In the new year we will enforce in law the firework industry's current voluntary ban on air bombs.

Phil Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and for his earlier comments. Last night, London echoed to the sound of fireworks as families and communities came together in their thousands to enjoy the fun and spectacle—but for many, the misuse of fireworks blights their lives, threatens their homes, terrifies their pets and destroys their quality of life. I welcome the new proposals and, although no one wants to be a killjoy, I ask my hon. Friend to do everything he can to ensure that the police and local authorities enforce any new legislation to stop the misuse of fireworks and stamp out that menace in our communities.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend, who over the years has campaigned vigorously to ensure that people do not suffer injury from fireworks. I pay tribute to his work. I was pleased to see that last year's figures showed a 25 per cent. reduction over the previous year, so the safety message is, I hope, getting through. I assure him that we shall do everything we can to ensure that people use fireworks safely.

Patrick Cormack: May I take it that the extremely sensible decision to prevent under-18s from possessing fireworks indicates that the Government will take a similarly robust and sensible line on votes at 16?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am happy to say that that is not a matter for me.

Adrian Bailey: I thank the Minister for his comments, and I want to emphasise that the number of complaints about fireworks has been growing year by year. Indeed, I have received from a constituent of mine—Mr. Bill Woodward, who is 80 today—a newspaper cutting from the Tipton Herald of 1963, the year in which he started his campaign for legislation on fireworks. I seek an assurance that the Minister will introduce those elements of the Fireworks Act 2003 that can be introduced as soon as possible, preferably before Christmas, so that I can reassure Mr. Woodward that the fruits of his labour will be achieved in his lifetime.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I would be pleased if my hon. Friend would give my congratulations to Mr. Woodward on achieving his 80th birthday, and on his work on firework campaigning. We will include in regulation as soon as possible—before the new year—those elements of the 2003 Act that we can include. Hopefully, all the regulations will be in place by July of next year in readiness for the subsequent firework celebrations.

Bill Tynan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one current major problem—the British Fireworks Association is on board in this regard—is that the simplicity of the application form for an import licence is allowing unscrupulous firms to import hundreds of tonnes of fireworks and distribute them indiscriminately, which is causing many of the problems with antisocial behaviour? Will he consider changing the terms of the import licence application to make it more difficult for such companies to import fireworks?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am happy to address that issue with my hon. Friend, to whom I earlier paid tribute for his work on fireworks; indeed, it is his work that has got us where we are today. I know that he has raised this issue with my ministerial colleagues. I am happy to discuss it with him, and I am sure that we can come to an arrangement. He is right—illegal fireworks are part of the problem and we need to work with the industry and to have proper regulation.

Employers' Liability Insurance

Alistair Carmichael: What assessment her Department has made of the impact of the recent changes in the cost of employers' liability compulsory insurance cover on UK businesses.

Nigel Griffiths: The Department of Trade and Industry is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions, which oversees this insurance, and with the Treasury, which oversees insurance markets.
	I have encouraged the Association of British Insurers and the Federation of Small Businesses to adopt a code of good practice, ensuring 21 days' notice of renewals. We have produced guidance to help insurers better distinguish between good and bad safety management and I am pleased to see it reported that this year's rises are more modest than previously.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I welcome his announcement, although the situation in my constituency, which is heavily dependent on small and medium-sized enterprises, indicates that that will not be enough. Some 25 per cent. of businesses in my constituency have reported an increase of 100 per cent. or more in the cost of employers' liability compulsory insurance premiums in the past 12 months. Can meaningful regulation be introduced to ensure that the insurance industry operates in a transparent manner and does not discriminate against SMEs in that way?

Nigel Griffiths: I am concerned about reports that the insurance industry has been using employers' liability compulsory insurance as a loss leader, writing premiums well below underwriting losses and making subsequent adjustments. Of course, small businesses find that very difficult to cope with. The Office of Fair Trading looked at this issue in the light of factors such as competitiveness and transparency and decided not to take action at this stage. However, the DTI always keeps such matters under review.

Eddie McGrady: Is the Minister aware that SMEs in Northern Ireland are suffering a double jeopardy, in that their premiums are already beyond mainland levels? Does he understand that there has been an average increase of 500 per cent. in the past three years? The premium of one of my constituents, who has a no-claim record, was £500 three years ago; now, it is £8,000. Businesses in Northern Ireland cannot sustain such increases. A fact-finding study in November 2002 reported in March 2003, but no action was taken. A further study commenced last month. SMEs in Northern Ireland cannot wait any longer—they are going out of business as I speak. Will the Minister expedite his resolution of this serious problem?

Nigel Griffiths: I am aware of the problems in Northern Ireland, because I discussed them on my last visit to see representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses there. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) highlights what appear to be unacceptable escalations in premiums. We have been working with and on the Association of British Insurers to try to ensure that proper risk assessments of companies are made. I visited several small businesses that, without experiencing circumstances that might adversely affect their claims, have seen their premiums rise to unacceptable levels. I have made it clear to the insurance industry that such rises are indeed unacceptable.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister referred to the Federation of Small Businesses, but has he seen the latest "Financial Statement and Budget Report", which pointed out that 6 per cent. of its members have faced reductions in profits as a direct result of soaring insurance premiums? Furthermore, 19 per cent. are having to lay off staff, and a worrying 8 per cent. reported that they were trading without proper insurance. A year ago, the Minister said that he took that issue very seriously. We have had several reports and heard many platitudes, but when is the small firms Minister really going to listen to small firms?

Nigel Griffiths: I deplore any company that is trading without proper insurance, which is illegal. I advise the hon. Gentleman to supply any information on failures to hold valid insurance to the Health and Safety Executive. Since the matter was raised last year and before, the latest survey, which was last month—the Bank of Scotland has commented on it—showed that, whatever the hon. Gentleman says about returns and profits, a third of small businesses intend to recruit staff and 20 per cent. are to increase net investment. That tells me that small businesses have, in their customary way, coped with great fortitude and are not being deflected from making the necessary investment to grow. That is what I want to see.

Martin O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend understand that it is not just small and medium-sized enterprises that are affected by the problem? There are several construction companies in my constituency, and in the past they prudently entered into two or three-year deals to cover insurance premiums—but when they reached the renewal date, they found that those premiums were doubling or trebling. Those companies require employers liability insurance for health and safety reasons, because the construction industry is one of the most dangerous. If they have either to cut corners or to reduce staff, it is not good for the industry as a whole. Big businesses are being hit as well as small, and who will pay for that? It will be the safety of the workers.

Nigel Griffiths: As the Minister responsible for construction, I know that that sector has one of the best safety records in the world, and I do not want anything to jeopardise it. I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will be pleased to learn that the DTI construction directorate has engaged an insurance industry specialist to liaise more closely with the industry to ensure that it is properly covered. The necessary steps must also be taken to ensure that building and construction sites meet the highest safety standards, which will also help to reduce their insurance premiums. I want to see them rewarded for taking such action.

Andrew Stunell: May I draw the Minister's attention to a small construction company in my constituency, which, after decades of claim-free operation, has had an eightfold increase in premiums in five years? That is clearly a serious problem for companies that have taken account of the safety factors, but are still being penalised by an insurance industry that seems deaf to the claims records and the needs of small businesses.

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman highlights a matter that we all find unacceptable. I am sure that he has made direct representations on behalf of his constituents to the insurance company concerned, and I am happy to add my voice as the Minister and write to the company myself.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Mark Prisk: What recent representations her Department has made to HM Treasury concerning the impact of stamp duty land tax on small businesses.

Nigel Griffiths: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made representations to the Treasury concerning the potential impact of the proposed changes on businesses. She was pleased that the change announced on 20 October will assist small and medium-sized enterprises and business start-ups, and she welcomed the Chancellor's decision to more than double exemption for businesses with a net present value of less than £150,000.

Mark Prisk: The Minister knows that businesses small and large remain bitterly opposed to the fourfold increase in tax on their leases. Is he also aware that business feels strongly that that will distort the leasehold market and restrain small business investment? Would he, as the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise, agree to meet a small delegation of businesses so that they can express their concerns on a matter that may well distort the leasehold market for small business right across the country?

Nigel Griffiths: I do not accept that. Almost two thirds of commercial leases signed by small businesses will be exempt. Previously, in most cases, stamp duty was paid, if at all, on 2 per cent. of one year's rent. Now the first £150,000 is exempt, and thereafter the rate is 1 per cent. The entire House should welcome this measure to close a tax loophole. I regularly meet the key federations and organisations representing small businesses, and I shall be happy to discuss the matter with them.

Tam Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the sheer difficulty experienced by those who apply for grants? Would he contact the Association of Marine Scientific Industries, which is particularly concerned about Natural Environment Research Council applications?

Nigel Griffiths: I am happy to respond in writing to my hon. Friend.

Workplace Consultation

Wayne David: What action she is taking to ensure greater rights to consultation in the workplace.

Patricia Hewitt: The information and consultation directive which comes into force in March 2005 will give new rights to employees to consultation about matters that affect them in the workplace.

Wayne David: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would make a great deal of sense if companies did not wait for the deadline of 2005, and if companies and trade unions co-operated—like Tesco and Asda, for example—to ensure that there is effective consultation long before 2005?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am delighted to say that we have already been working closely with both the CBI and the TUC. I pay tribute to Digby Jones and Brendan Barber for the work that they have done in agreeing a framework for implementation. Now that that is in place, well in advance of the directive coming into effect, I hope that many more businesses will take advantage of the opportunity to create an effective partnership with their work force and its representatives.

Tim Yeo: Given that Britain faces more acute competition—[Interruption.] I shall take three minutes over this question. Given that Britain faces more acute competition internationally for both investment and jobs, will the Secretary of State undertake, whenever additional obligations are placed on British employers, to carry out an assessment of the likely impact of those obligations, regardless of how desirable or well-intended they may be, on the job prospects over the next 10 years of less-skilled workers?

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of competition, if not for the leadership of his own party. He raises a serious matter—the impact upon the least-skilled workers in our community of the enormous process of restructuring that is taking place not just in the United Kingdom and Europe, but right across the world. It is therefore central to our skills strategy, to the work that we are doing in the regional development agencies—which I think the Opposition intend to abolish—and to the work that we are doing in the most disadvantaged areas that we help those low-skilled workers, who are most vulnerable to displacement in the global economy, to get the skills and the jobs that they need. I remind the hon. Gentleman that despite all those global changes, we have 1.5 million more people in work than we had six years ago.

Fireworks

Andy Reed: What action her Department is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour and nuisance caused by fireworks.

Gerry Sutcliffe: My Department has had discussions with a range of stakeholders, including the fireworks industry, the police and environmental health officers to formulate proposals for regulations under the Fireworks Act 2003 on antisocial behaviour and nuisance matters. Areas covered include the prohibition of air bombs and a curfew.

Andy Reed: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that ensuring that we enforce those regulations will be crucial to deciding the future of the firework industry? Constituents continually complain about the noise of fireworks. If we cannot get the issue right in the next 24 months, our constituents will come back time and again to ask for further regulations or even an outright ban on fireworks. Many of us who enjoy peaceful fireworks would not want that to happen. We are not killjoys, but we recognise the real concerns felt by our constituents.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. The firework industry has been very responsible in the work that it undertook alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). A balance has to be struck between the industry, operating responsibly, and the safety of consumers. The regulations will work and will provide the balance that we need so that people can enjoy the firework season. The regulations will ensure that antisocial behaviour is not accepted.

Kevin Hughes: I welcome what the Secretary of State and the Minister have done so far, but will they go further? We must face the fact that all fireworks are dangerous. In the wrong hands, some are dangerous weapons. Is it time to introduce a licensing system, so that only responsible organisations would have a licence to use fireworks because they would do so properly?

Gerry Sutcliffe: The licensing regime is important and that is why it is included in the regulations to be made under the Fireworks Act 2003. However, people must make sound judgments. Fireworks are explosives and are dangerous. We need a balance between what people enjoy—safe firework displays around bonfires or for Diwali—and ensuring that people know how to use fireworks. That is why the regulations will say that people must be trained in the safe use of particular fireworks. It is a question of balance and the regulations are appropriate. I hope that they will work and that my hon. Friend will welcome them.

Eric Illsley: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some situations antisocial behaviour with fireworks borders on acts of terrorism? In an incident in my constituency, a powerful firework, packed with nuts and bolts and other shrapnel, was detonated in a telephone box, parts of which blew into a housing estate. Such fireworks need to be banned before serious injury is caused by those people, not necessarily under-18s, who use them to cause criminal damage.

Gerry Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend really does point to a serious issue and the dilemma that we face. If we ban fireworks completely, we will be faced with illegal and home-made fireworks. They could cause all sorts of damage to the individual using them and to others in the community. It is a question of balance, but we hope that the antisocial behaviour orders will stop youngsters under 18—who are the main culprits—misusing fireworks.

Post Office Network

Andrew Turner: How many urban post offices have been (a) proposed and (b) approved for closure since the inception of the network reinvention scheme.

Stephen Timms: I am understand from Post Office Ltd. that to the end of September, it had entered into public consultation on 886 closure proposals and that 540 branches had closed under the programme.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for his reply and the attention that he has paid to the concerns of my constituents about post office closures in recent days. He told the House yesterday that
	"there is a properly managed process for the Post Office to configure its network to meet the needs of the communities that it serves".—[Official Report, 5 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 909.]
	Does that mean that the Post Office does not simply wait for requests from postmasters and postmistresses to retire, but proactively approaches some of them with the suggestion that they might take advantage of the urban network reinvention scheme? In other words, does the Post Office take a strategic view of where sub-post offices should be?

Stephen Timms: It is vital that such a strategic view is taken. Indeed, that is one of the benefits of the new arrangements being put in place, about which the hon. Gentleman knows well. The Post Office will consult on the ultimate configuration of the post office network in a constituency or group of constituencies, instead of consulting on individual closures.
	We want to ensure that we have a configuration for the network that is viable and sustainable. Everyone knows that a lot of the traditional business of post offices has been declining. For example, 43 per cent. of benefits recipients now have their money paid into a bank account, compared with 26 per cent. in 1996, before direct payments started. Investment by the Government means that there is now an attractive future based on banking but, to prosper, the urban network needs an appropriate configuration and size, given current demands. It is important to take that strategic view.

Harry Barnes: Is the Minister aware of the sheer inadequacy of the Post Office's consultation process? When people make representations, they are likely to receive a letter 80 per cent. of which is devoted to the argument about why massive changes must take place, which pre-empts the decision to be made. That happened in Coal Aston in my constituency, where the branch is to close on 6 December. I hope that the matter will be looked at closely before that date, with a view to reconsideration. The considerable number of representations that were made had various unique characteristics, and they must be taken seriously. In that way, I hope that we can still stop the closure.

Stephen Timms: It is important that such representations are taken seriously. That is why we have given Postwatch the funding and resources to do an effective job on behalf of the Post Office's customers. Of just over 1,100 proposals submitted to Postwatch by the end of October, 43 were withdrawn and 60 were modified before public consultation. Of those that went to consultation, 48 were modified and 13 were withdrawn for further consideration. That shows that there is effective protection of the interests of Post Office customers. The role of Postwatch is key in that.

Tim Yeo: Will the Minister confirm that Labour's policy of ending the cash payment of pensions and social security benefits at post offices is cutting the income of many sub-post offices by as much as 40 per cent? Will he also confirm that Labour approves of the policy of paying bonuses to the management of Post Office Network for accelerating the programme of post office closures? Will he further confirm that, once Labour has decimated the urban network, it will set about carving up the rural network as well?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on all those scores. May I wish him well in the reshuffle that we understand is planned for the Conservative Front Bench this afternoon, and express the hope that he will not be sacked by text message? For far too long, the Post Office has been locked in a declining market. Even now—and persistently under the previous Conservative Government—that market has been based on ration-book technology. Our investment of £500 million has given the network the technology to tackle the much larger, and growing, market for banking services. Those developments open up the prospect of a commercially successful future for the post office network, based on today's needs instead of yesterday's.

David Lepper: Will the Minister acknowledge that residents in my Brighton and Hove constituency—[Hon. Members: "Brighton and Hove?"]—in the Brighton, Pavilion constituency that I represent are now two weeks into a consultation period on six post office closures? Other offices across the city are also to be closed, but none of the evidence underlying the Post Office's closure proposals has yet been published. That severely undermines people's ability to respond meaningfully to a consultation exercise. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Post Office to publish in full the evidence that underlies all its proposed closures, in my constituency and elsewhere?

Stephen Timms: I think my hon. Friend will agree that the new procedure that he has described, which allows him to see what the ultimate configuration of post offices in his constituency will be, is better than dealing with proposed closures one by one, as used to be the case. I urge my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members concerned about proposals in their areas, to draw their concerns to the attention of Postwatch, a major part of whose work consists of protecting customer interests, in all constituencies. If my hon. Friend does that, I think he will find a ready ear for the concerns he has expressed.

Small Business (Late Payment)

Andrew George: If she will make a statement on the late payment of debts to small businesses.

Nigel Griffiths: As a result of action taken by the Government since 1998, including the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, the creation of the better payment practice group, the provision for small businesses to claim debt recovery costs and giving small and medium enterprise organisations rights to challenge unfair contract terms on behalf of their members, I am pleased to tell the House that the average time taken to settle debts in the UK has reduced by more than a week, and is nine days less than the European average.

Andrew George: I am pleased to hear that the Government are taking a robust line on late payers, but what are they doing about one of the worst of all late payers, namely, themselves? Only last week, for example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs admitted that £50 million is still owed to contractors who were involved in the clean-up after foot and mouth two years ago. Many of those companies are perilously close to bankruptcy, so when will the matter be cleared up, and will the companies be entitled to a statutory right to charge interest on those late payments?

Nigel Griffiths: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman which companies will not be entitled to claim that statutory right: those who are perpetrating or seeking to perpetrate fraud against DEFRA. The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that my colleagues in DEFRA have paid out many hundreds of millions of pounds, but they are challenging the many fraudulent claims. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that in general the Government's payment record is 94.83 per cent. on time—up 3 per cent. in the past seven years.

David Taylor: In a far-off life when the working week was only 60 or so hours, I had a good number of clients who were in the construction, textile and haulage industries. In terms of late payment, their main difficulty was that most of their income derived from a single client. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how, in those circumstances, the worthwhile changes that have been made can actually be used to extract faster payment? People are unlikely to bite too quickly the hand that is feeding them with most of their revenue.

Nigel Griffiths: That is a real concern and I am sure that all hon. Members are aware of it. That is why we have taken several specific actions. The first is to allow representative organisations to take what might be considered a class action—I use the term loosely—on behalf of the companies, to overcome the fear factor. Secondly, when hon. Members raise cases with me I have undertaken to write to the large and powerful organisations that appear to be delaying payment. I am pleased to see that, in general, payment times are speeding up. We keep the matter under review, and the better payment practice group meets regularly to advise us on improvements.

Andrew Mitchell: But in spite of the Minister's judicious and careful use of statistics, he knows perfectly well that Departments are among the worst offenders. In the interests of open government, will he publish a league table to name and shame those Departments that are the worst offenders in this respect?

Nigel Griffiths: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been: such information is published. It is put in the public domain and in the Library. I completely reject the hon. Gentleman's assertion about Government payment. As I said, the record is 3 per cent. better than under the last Administration, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell the House what he did at that time to make it so bad then.

Internet/Broadband Access

Michael Connarty: What action she is taking to increase the availability of (a) the internet and (b) broadband services within the UK; and if she will make a statement.

Stephen Timms: I welcome the recent news from Oftel that half of UK households are now connected to the internet. The network of 6,000 UK Online centres was completed last year. The Oxford Internet Institute reports that only 4 per cent. of the population lacks ready access to the internet.
	Eighty per cent. of UK households are now within reach of a broadband service—more than in the US. We are confident that the figure will reach 90 per cent. next year. We are approaching a broadband connection figure of 3 million. Wireless broadband and the growth of public sector broadband use will be especially helpful in further extending availability.

Michael Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and commend him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for their continued enthusiasm for the spread of internet and broadband, which are, in a sense, the highway of the 21st century as rail and road were in the 19th century. However, the problem for my constituents—for example, in Grangemouth—is that a number of households or small and medium-sized enterprises are applying but no account is being taken of the fact that, in Grangemouth, we have BP, Syngenta, Avecia, GE Plastics and ENI Chemicals. They are all large users of the internet and broadband, yet they count as only one user. That means that SMEs cannot easily reach BT's targets. Can my hon. Friend take the question up with BT, to ensure that in industrial communities large users count as more than one unit?

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The Office for National Statistics said that, in July, 48 per cent. of households had access to the internet, but that 56 per cent. of people have used the internet in the past three months, reflecting the fact that a lot of people are using the internet at work, at school and elsewhere. Many big companies will already have made their own arrangements, so they are not dependent on the upgrading of local exchanges. Nevertheless, I will ensure that the interesting point that my hon. Friend makes is drawn to the attention of BT. I will meet the chief executive of BT shortly, and I will put the point to him when I do so.

Michael Fabricant: At the beginning of this year, the Government announced with some fanfare the broadband aggregation scheme—under which, for example, if there is a hospital, school or whatever in a rural area, there might be justification to provide broadband to those points. The Government went on to say—logically, I thought at the time—that that could enable broadband to be given to subscribers, but that has not happened. Nothing has happened; it has been all talk and no do. Will the Minister prove me wrong and tell me precisely when the first exchange will be enabled under that scheme?

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that that initiative is very important. A great deal of progress has been made. All the regional aggregation bodies—he will be aware of them—will be established by the end of this month, and procurement through those bodies will start at the beginning of next year. That will be an effective way to change the basis for the service providers to invest in the provision of broadband in rural areas. Aggregation will take place at regional level, so we will be using the market as a powerful lever to improve private sector performance, but in a framework managed in the public interest by the public sector. The procurements will start in January, and I would expect the benefits to be felt very soon after that.

Brian White: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that there will not be the equivalent of planning blight as people wait for the regional aggregation bodies to come into effect before they make decisions, and that public sector bodies such as local authorities can still honour the existing contracts?

Stephen Timms: Yes, I think I can give that assurance. Of course, we are seeing a very rapid growth in broadband at the moment. Something like 150,000 extra connections are made each month, and there is no sign at all of that tailing off. Indeed, we hope it will accelerate. I think I can give an assurance that there will not be a hiatus as a result of the new arrangements being introduced; indeed, they will contribute to further acceleration and growth.

Working Time Directive

Anne McIntosh: What assessment she has made of the implications of the working time directive on (a) the service sector and (b) manufacturing industry.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Department of Trade and Industry has commissioned research into the implementation of the working time regulations that considered a range of organisations, including those in the manufacturing and service sectors. The general conclusions drawn were that the regulations had marginal or no impact in 10 of the 20 organisations interviewed and that, where an impact was felt, it acted as an impetus to review work practices and work smarter. A recent follow-up study, published in July 2003, of a subset of those firms concluded that the recent legislative changes have not been problematic for most employers interviewed.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister confirm the figure given by the British Chambers of Commerce showing that the total cost to industry of implementing the working time directive is £2.3 billion? Will he give a commitment today that he will meet the 23 November deadline to negotiate an opt-out from the 48-hour limit? Will he stand up for British business and resist the working time directive?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I cannot help but notice that the hon. Lady is the only Back Bencher sitting on the Conservative Benches—perhaps lots of job application forms are going in after the coronation of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).

Anne McIntosh: Answer the question.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman needs a mention because he refused to accept the working time directive in 1991. The working time directive is important to employees and employers because it gives people four weeks holiday and an appropriate working week. Good employer-employee relations develop from the working time directive. We are happy to ensure that the United Kingdom's position remains as it is.

Hugh Bayley: Is my hon. Friend aware that for the second time in just a few weeks, the Nestlé Rowntree factory in my constituency announced a large number of redundancies, in three figures? The working time directive is important in the confectionery industry because of the Easter and Christmas production peaks. The factory supplies throughout the EU, in the eurozone as well as the UK. It is essential that we have a level playing field so that we compete fairly with the Nestlé Rowntree factories in Hamburg and Dijon. Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulations must be applied in exactly the same way in all factories?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to have a level playing field. I am sorry to learn of the situation with Nestlé Rowntree, which has been in his constituency for many years in a variety of guises. I am happy to report that I work with Employment Ministers across the EU and the new accession countries. It is necessary to have a flexible approach to labour markets while ensuring that there are minimum standards for employees.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

The Minister was asked—

Child Care

Andrew George: What steps she is taking to improve access to child care for women.

Patricia Hewitt: The Government are committed to improving access to good-quality child care for all parents seeking places for their children. We are spending record amounts on child care, with a £1.5 billion budget by 2006 for sure start, early years and child care.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that child care facilities provided by employers—necessarily larger employers—are tax deductible, whereas those who work for small employers and use child care facilities pay tax? In areas such as mine, people predominantly work for small employers, are on low incomes and pay a disproportionate amount of their income on child care. Do the Government have plans to address that and equalise the mismatch?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues in the Treasury are considering the issue of employer-supported child care. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the existence—not widely enough known—of child care vouchers that employers can provide to their employees. Those are particularly suitable for small businesses and relieve the employer of the cost of employers' national insurance contributions.

Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for both parents and employers to have access to good information about child care as well having access to child care itself? Will she commend the work of Opportunity Links in my constituency, of which I am the unpaid chair, and, of course, Childcare Links, the Government's website, which gives information on child care and I understand receives about 7 million hits a month?

Patricia Hewitt: I am delighted to have the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on Cambridge Opportunity Links, which she started before 1997. It was so successful that it formed the basis for the national roll-out of Opportunity Links and it provides an invaluable service. I am delighted to congratulate not only my hon. Friend but everyone else associated with it.

Caroline Spelman: For the benefit of hon. Members, perhaps I should explain that there is meeting of the 1922 committee of the Conservative party, which explains the absence of my Back-Bench colleagues. I think I can, with some confidence, be the first to record officially my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who I assume will be successful.
	I commend the Minister for Women for having the courage to admit in her interview with The Daily Telegraph that the Government may have given the impression that they want all mothers to go out to work, and that her view was falsely given. I wish such grown-up politics, with the Government admitting their mistakes, would happen more often. However, the loss of 20,000 childminders over the past three years has reduced a mother's choice in relation to child care. Is the right hon. Lady prepared to make another admission that the Government's favouring of institutional child care has also been a mistake?

Patricia Hewitt: I wish the hon. Lady well in the coming reshuffle and thank her for her remarks. I am clear—I have been advancing this argument for longer than I care to remember, and certainly for the past 15 years or more—that it is the role of Government to support parents and families in choosing how they can best balance the care of their children and earning a living. That is what we are doing with our investment in child care, with the support that we are giving through child care tax credit and children's tax credit, and with the package of family-friendly measures that we introduced in April—which I hope the new leader of the Conservative party will not seek to abolish, given that he opposed all the social chapter measures when he was a member of the Cabinet.
	Given the mix of child care, I think that we are responding to the wishes of parents for good-quality day care and nursery care places that can integrate education, child care and support for families. We are at the forefront with our mix of child care, and what we are doing is being studied with great interest and admiration throughout the world.

Meg Munn: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that most parents want local child care. One of the problems for women in some poor areas has been an absence of childminders. What progress has been made in spreading the availability of childminders to all areas?

Patricia Hewitt: As we put in place the children centres—we have already announced the first 32 or so—which will be focused on the most disadvantaged communities, we will provide a base for day-care centres and also a base where childminders can come to get support and extra resources to improve the services that they can offer within their own homes or in the homes of the parents for whose children they are caring. That is the approach that will meet the different needs of families, especially in our poorest communities.

Sandra Gidley: Despite the increase in child care places, there is still an unmet demand. Does the Minister share my concern that more and more families are having to resort to the use of au pair agencies? Au pairs are untrained, unchecked and often exploited. If the right hon. Lady shares my concern, will she tell the House what she plans to do?

Patricia Hewitt: There have been situations where au pairs have found themselves expected to take on far too much responsibility within the home, particularly for the care of a very small child, and where they have been exploited by their employers. I share the hon. Lady's concern about the position of some au pairs, although others do an outstanding job. I know that that is a matter that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children is considering.

Employment Rights (Parents)

Brian White: What action has been taken to (a) monitor and (b) increase the take up of the Government's measures to help mothers of (i) small children and (ii) disabled children.

Jacqui Smith: The package of new laws implemented this April provides parents with more choice and more support in deciding how they balance work and child care in ways that benefit everyone—employers, employees and children. Monitoring is important and we are working to develop a comprehensive range of information, both qualitative and quantitative. That includes the results of the second work-life balance study of employers which we published on Monday; monitoring changes in the workforce through the labour force survey; monitoring the number of calls to the ACAS helpline; and working with other bodies to survey specific target groups.
	To ensure take-up, we have undertaken a national advertising campaign and provided a package of guidance material to increase the take-up and to support employers and employees.

Brian White: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Schemes such as sure start have been a tremendous success in my constituency and in others, but may I ask my hon. Friend to look at the public service agreements and cross-departmental and individual departmental targets, which interacting together can sometimes impede some of the objectives that she has set out. Will she consider that and have regard to blockages within individual targets and PSA agreements?

Jacqui Smith: I hope that the targets set by the Government are not impeding the important progress that we have made in promoting the work-life balance both within and outside Government. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the range of policies to support children, from sure start to improved tax benefits and investment in health and education, are important in ensuring that we have the right policies in place for families and the right choices in place for parents.

Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's measures to help mothers of disabled children are as much about addressing problems as about recognising potential? Given that a number of children with disabilities, especially those with autism, have great talents in music and art for example, will she and her colleagues do their utmost on an interdepartmental basis to ensure that those children's potential is fully realised?

Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend has a proud record of supporting disabled children, and he has made an important point—the workplace flexibilities that we can offer the parents of disabled children are important if the children are to achieve their potential. My right hon. Friends the Minister for Children and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills put the need to maximise opportunities for disabled children at the centre of their work on the better integration of support services for disabled children. We need to make sure that we design services around disabled children to enable them to maximise their chances, not make them fit into administrative structures.

Business of the House

Eric Forth: rose—

Hon. Members: Bye bye!

Eric Forth: Can we have the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 10 November—Remaining stages of the Water Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 11 November—Remaining stages of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the European Union (Accessions) Bill, followed by a debate on reforming the United Nations on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Wednesday 12 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Fire Services Bill, followed by motions relating to stamp duty land tax orders.
	Thursday 13 November—Money resolution relating to the Extradition Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Extradition Bill.
	Friday 14 November—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will include:
	Monday 17 November—Commons consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, followed if necessary by further Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
	Tuesday 18 November—Commons consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, followed if necessary by further Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
	Wednesday 19 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, followed by Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 20 November—Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
	The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
	In respect of prorogation, I hope that it will be possible to prorogue no later than Thursday 20 November. The House will understand that that is subject to the progress of business in both Houses, but that looks like the most likely date at the moment.
	The House will wish to be reminded that the next meeting of the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference is on Monday 10 November at 4.30 pm.

Eric Forth: We are all very grateful, because at last we are getting a hint of some substantive business. It is significant that their lordships were mentioned so frequently because, sadly, it is they who are doing all the work in Parliament these days. However, we are grateful for the crumbs that we get from their lordships, and they will give us something to do in a couple of weeks' time.
	Can I ask the part-time Leader of the House—

Ken Purchase: What about the part-timers over there?

Eric Forth: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are as intrigued by the predictability of Government Members' comments as I am. On the state visit of President Bush, when are we going to be told what arrangements are being made for the President of the United States to address, as I hope he will, Parliament or both Houses of Parliament? I can understand that there may be security considerations, but I hope that we will be given proper notice of the event, and I for one hope to get an invitation.
	When will the pre-Budget statement be made? Is it being delayed because the Chancellor is ashamed of what it will contain? Will it contain yet more stealth taxes? Will property taxes be sneaked into it? We are already getting a stealth tax on business leases next week. I wonder whether the pre-Budget statement is being somehow covered up, concealed or delayed because the Chancellor does not want to tell us what is in it.
	On a similar subject, when will we be given the local government settlement statement? I hope that we can be told that a statement will not be made at the very last minute, that it will be given in ample time and that we will have proper time to debate it. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is something that affects every Member of this House and all our constituents. The local government settlement is an important annual event, and I hope that the part-time Leader will be able to tell us that it will be delivered in proper time and that we will also have proper time to discuss it and question Ministers about it.
	When will we see the Penrose report on Equitable? Some 1 million pensioners—I suspect that they include constituents of all Members—have been very much affected by Equitable. I hope that we can receive a guarantee that the report will be brought to the House soon, and that when it is brought we will be given proper time to debate it. I want to question Ministers on it, as I am sure do other Members from both sides of the House. I hope that there will be no further delay before the Penrose report on Equitable is made available to us.
	Does the part-time Leader of the House agree with either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor about the European Union? The other day, the Chancellor told us in The Daily Telegraph:
	"the IGC must respond without ambiguities that might, if unravelled, undermine even the best of intentions."
	He went on:
	"Indeed our rejection of a federal European state and support for an outward-looking and flexible European Union is not a British obsession but can become, we believe, the settled view of most of Europe."
	I thoroughly applaud what the Chancellor said—[Interruption.] The part-time Leader tells us that he, too, applauds it. Perhaps we can find time for a little debate on the subject; it could be entitled, "Who is right on Europe: the Prime Minister or the Chancellor?" The Prime Minister could open the debate and the Chancellor could wind up, and between them they could see whether they could get their act together.

Peter Hain: On behalf of the whole House, may I be the first to congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on becoming Conservative party leader in his Saddam Hussein-type election? The Government are delighted that Mr. Poll Tax is now leading Her Majesty's official Opposition. I am also pleased the shadow Leader of the House is still hanging on in there.

Eric Forth: Just!

Peter Hain: Like Custer's last stand. My vote goes to him, as one of the most treasured possessions of the Opposition Front Bench.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions, the first of which was about President Bush's state visit. He will appreciate that a state visit is a matter for the palace and the President's office, and that there are particular security considerations. I shall certainly make it top of my list to ensure that he gets an invitation to whatever events are held—if he is still shadow Leader of the House. If he is no longer shadow Leader, I shall, in my generosity, nevertheless try to get him an invitation, as I have enjoyed my spats with him.
	The Chancellor will make a statement on the pre-Budget report soon. That statement will reflect the strength of the British economy under this Government. We have low interest rates, and after the quarter point rise today, we still have lower interest rates than we were used to under the previous Conservative Government, which illustrates the economic stability that exists under our Labour Government. Together with low inflation and record employment, that will be reflected in the Chancellor's statement.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the local authority settlement. He will appreciate that, under our Government, settlements have been made earlier than usual. That will remain the case, and a statement will be made soon.
	I appreciate the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about the Penrose report on Equitable Life. On behalf of our constituents, we all share those concerns, and I shall certainly seriously consider what he said.
	Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the Prime Minister's and the Chancellor's views on the European Union. The truth is that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, other members of the Cabinet and I have exactly the same view. We are for Britain's membership of the European Union, unlike the shadow Leader of the House, who wants Britain to leave, losing nearly 3 million British jobs in all our constituencies in the process.
	In respect of the intergovernmental conference negotiations, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been fully accountable to the House on numerous occasions. Our objective is to ensure that what we achieved when I represented the Government on behalf of the Cabinet in the Convention on the Future of Europe is a European Union that is a union of nation states, not a federal superstate, with taxation decided at a national level, not harmonised at a Brussels level. That is, and will remain, the position of the British Government, and I am happy to clarify it.

Paul Tyler: My colleagues and I share the delight at the appointment of the new leader of the Conservative party, not least because we are taking a close interest in the real election that will take place in his constituency.
	Since the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is presumably not sure whether this is his last appearance in his current role, I should like to paraphrase Churchill by saying that, if this is his swansong—some swan: some neck.
	I have very much enjoyed responding to five Leaders of the House, particularly over the past two and half years in which we have engaged in a sort of threesome on Thursday afternoons. [Interruption.] I have played only a bit part in that, but I suggest that all three of us have a close interest in the way in which this House does its business. Will the Leader of the House give some thought, between now and the Queen's speech, to providing an opportunity to debate the way in which this place operates? In particular, it is time we had a debate—perhaps on the Adjournment—on the role of the so-called usual channels. In the past, because of associations with hunting and the Whips, the usual channels have been given rather a bad name, and the public may misunderstand their role. However, that role is essential—it is rather like the mysterious subterranean way in which the sewers support civilisation. Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to debate in the Chamber precisely how we handle our business—not least the way in which we try to improve legislation?

Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing to the House's attention the fact that there was a 20 per cent. Labour vote in Folkestone and Hythe at the last election. Now, of course, that Labour vote will be carefully considering the best way of removing the leader of the Conservative party.
	I genuinely echo the hon. Gentleman's generous comments about the shadow Leader of the House. He is a proud parliamentarian—the hon. Gentleman and I share that with him. Although we have our differences, that is the key part of his role, and we respect that.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the usual channels, I am afraid that that is typical of the Liberal Democrats, who never expect to be in government—

Bob Russell: Is that why you switched?

Peter Hain: As a result, they do not take the usual channels seriously. Does the hon. Gentleman want his own Chief Whip cut out of the usual channels? The Whips play a valuable role in making sure that the business of the House goes forward: he should seriously reflect on that.

Ken Purchase: The Leader of the House mentioned today's 0.25 per cent. movement in interest rates. Will he ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the Dispatch Box next week to give the House his view on the effects that that change might have on manufacturing industry? We all accept that the high street and the housing market may be in need of a small increase in interest charges, but I urge upon my right hon. Friend the importance of ensuring that any fiscal measures at the Chancellor's disposal are used quickly in aid of our manufacturing industry.

Peter Hain: First, I acknowledge my hon. Friend's considerable expertise and interest in manufacturing. He has long been an advocate of a strong manufacturing sector, as have I and many other Members of the House. He will know and be encouraged to note that a survey published only this week shows that growth in manufacturing is at its strongest for four years. The Government have created the economic stability which underpins manufacturing that has put it in a good position to resist the downturn in international trade and in a better position than many other competitor countries.
	The quarter per cent. rate rise will be considered in its broad context. It shows an economy that is strengthening. The raising of the interest rates by the Bank of England shows that what it wanted to do was to ensure that the stability that the Government have locked in remains while the economy continues to grow and grow at a faster rate. That is welcome news for manufacturers, in terms of bigger markets and the growth that underpins them.

Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware that we are looking forward to an election in Northern Ireland. Will he put it on his horizon that it might be wise for legislation that affects the whole nation—for example, disability legislation and issues of that nature—to be kept before this House, particularly if a Government is not formed in Northern Ireland? In that way, the people of Northern Ireland will get the benefits that they should get as part of the United Kingdom.

Peter Hain: Legislation such as disability legislation will have to be considered in terms of what is devolved and what is properly reserved for Westminster. I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have noted it too.

Julie Morgan: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the plight of the Allied Steel and Wire workers who came to Westminster earlier this week to meetings arranged by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). Is there nothing that he can do to get us out of this impasse? It is outrageous that the steelworkers have paid into the pension fund all their life and now are entitled to nothing. Is there no way forward that he can find that will prevent them from having to go to court to try to seek what is rightfully theirs? Can he not implore Ministers to get together to find some way out of this disgraceful situation?

Peter Hain: I agree that it is a disgraceful situation. Successive Ministers have met delegations from Allied Steel and Wire and I commend my hon. Friend and other Cardiff Members for the way in which they have fought the cause of these workers who have been robbed of their pensions. She will appreciate that the Government have to consider the knock-on effects for other similar situations and the law in this respect. One reason why we are introducing new legislation, following the Green Paper on pensions reform, is precisely to address the plight of such workers who have been so badly treated on their pensions.

Michael Jack: Will the Leader of the House consider asking the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come to the House and make an early statement? This week part of the trial dealing with bovine TB was stopped. Since 1999 the Government have spent £158 million on dealing with this scourge, including £45 million on the culling trial. The cessation of part of this trial has left the world of agriculture in a state of great confusion. The future is unclear and we need a statement on that. Will he bear in mind the fact that, also this week, we have seen the beginning of the end of parts of the agencies that serve DEFRA, under the Haskins review? The House has not heard the details of it and the time is ripe to probe it.

Peter Hain: The Haskins review has just reported and in due course, following consideration by the Secretary of State, who will want to reflect on it, she will report to the House. I am aware of the problem of bovine TB, as is she, and we are monitoring it closely and intend to keep it under supervision.

Dennis Skinner: Can the Leader of the House tell us when we will have a further debate on the new deal? Now that it has been a success in providing more stable employment in certain areas, perhaps it could be introduced to political parties as well. Some of us just cannot understand why there is not an agency to which political parties can go, to stop this business of having two-year supply leaders of the Tory party.

Peter Hain: That is a novel suggestion, and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State. Obviously, it is of great concern—I am sure that it will be of interest to the whole House—that the official Opposition want to abolish the new deal, and that the new leader of the Conservative party is wedded to that policy. I am sure that, when my hon. Friend's proposal is considered, that issue will also be considered. Nearly 500,000 people have been brought into work and trained for work opportunities under the new deal, and it would be criminal to scrap it. That will be one of the issues to be contested at the next general election.

Hywel Williams: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the lessons to be learned from the devolved bodies about scrutiny? I ask this in the light of the constitution unit's report, which shows that those bodies are better at keeping in touch with the public, and that pressure from their Opposition parties is more likely to lead to change by the Executive. Would there be lessons to be learned in that regard for under-employed Labour Back Benchers who are tempted to brief against their colleagues in Cardiff, and perhaps for the Secretary of State for Wales as well?

Peter Hain: I am not sure about under-employed Labour Back Benchers, but there are certainly a lot of under-employed Conservative Back Benchers who are presumably celebrating the election of their new leader somewhere upstairs at the moment. One of the advantages of devolution, particularly in regard to the National Assembly for Wales's scrutiny procedures, is that we can learn from one other. That was one of the reasons why I campaigned so hard for a yes vote in the referendum, as the hon. Gentleman and others did. I hope that we will look at the way in which the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales have worked, and I hope that they will look at our procedures as well. Perhaps we will learn something from one another.

Tam Dalyell: May I raise a point of House of Commons procedure, of which I have given the office of the Leader of the House notice? How are we going to monitor the absolutely burgeoning costs of the commitment in Iraq? The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said recently that,
	"For the current financial year, further sums have been drawn down from the special reserve. These are subject to scrutiny by HM Treasury and Parliament through the normal estimates process."—[Official Report, 30 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 21WS.]
	Does the Leader of the House think that the normal estimates process, which takes an endless amount of time, is really the way in which the House of Commons should be following this enormous expenditure that we have been landed with?

Peter Hain: I agree that it is a considerable expenditure. The best assessment of war-fighting and peacekeeping costs over this year will be submitted formally to Parliament in the winter supplementary estimates, and we hope to inform Parliament of those costs shortly. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are involved in stabilising a bad security situation around Baghdad and the Tikrit area, although the south of the country is in much better shape, as is the north. I am sure that he will want to support that, whatever his views on the rights and wrongs of the war, because we want to provide a stable, democratic, peaceful future for the Iraqi people—something that they have not had for generations.

John Gummer: Would the Leader of the House, in a bipartisan spirit, look at an occurrence this morning when the Government announced in a written statement a plan to deal wholly differently with agreements made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—section 106 agreements? The fact that a Minister did not come to the House means that many people will suspect that this is the beginning of a new form of stealth taxation. I am sure that the Government would not wish that to be believed, and a sensible debate about this would demand that it should not be. Why did no Minister come to the House to make this announcement, so that we could have a discussion about this major significant change in the way in which we handle our planning laws?

Peter Hain: I appreciate the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman raised that question, but he will also understand that the purpose of issuing written ministerial statements is to provide the House with more information, so that hon. Members like him can check their policy response. I assure him that there is no attempt to impose a stealth tax of any kind through this procedure. It is an attempt to modernise the planning system, which has been the objective all along.

David Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that early-day motion 1759 on House of Commons sitting arrangements has attracted 170 signatures from both sides of the House?
	[That this House notes that the revised sitting hours and related arrangements have now been in place for 10 months; believes that there is now sufficient experience of the new arrangements to enable the House to judge what adjustments would be appropriate to enable the business of the House to be conducted more effectively; and calls for a review of the reforms.]
	Will my right hon. Friend tell us when a review of these reforms will take place?

Peter Hain: I am well aware of the number of signatures to that early-day motion. Obviously, there are strong feelings on this matter on both sides of the House, and sometimes bitter divisions of view on it. The House took a decision last year for the hours to be changed for the rest of this Parliament. In the consultations that I am having with many Members on both sides of the House, I want to keep continually under review exactly how we can ensure that some of the bottlenecks and teething problems in the new system can be resolved. I hope that we can take these matters forward soon, because there are a number of unsatisfactory aspects to the arrangements—for example, the very early sittings of some Committees, and the fact that the Chamber is locked earlier in the evening, which means that Members cannot bring dinner guests in to have a look when the House is not sitting. We should resolve issues such as those in a commonsense way, but there will have to be a review before the end of this Parliament to satisfy my hon. Friend's concerns and those of others.

Bob Russell: The Leader of the House referred to the strength of the economy. Does he accept, however, that hundreds of thousands of families are not benefiting from that strength? I am referring to the 35,000 households, for example, in the counties in the east of England with children who are living in accommodation that is not suitable for their needs. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this, so that we can discuss the social consequences of 25 years of insufficient investment in new council houses?

Peter Hain: The social consequences are very serious, as the hon. Gentleman says, and we are seeking to address this issue. It is important, however, that he acknowledge that the hard-won economic stability that we have created through a combination of low inflation, low interest rates and high employment has brought prosperity to his region and his constituency, along with more jobs—including in the areas that contain those particular dwellings. Building on the back of that economic stability, greater investment in housing—and social housing—can be taken forward. We cannot do that without the economic stability that we have created.

Joan Ruddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the EU Commission is to put to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health a proposal to approve a BT sweet corn called BT11, ahead of the rigorous regulations that are to be brought into force later this year? Doing that would end the moratorium in Europe on both genetically modified food and crops.
	I have pressed my right hon. Friend in the past to have a debate on the Floor of the House on this issue, and I repeat today that things are happening in other places that are determining the possible future commercial planting of GM crops in this country. There is a need for a debate on the Floor of the House—notwithstanding the fact that I am grateful that there is to be a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall next week.

Peter Hain: I was going to say to my hon. Friend that that debate was going to take place. The Minister will reply to it, and there will be an opportunity for all those issues to be raised and for her very proper concerns to be addressed. In no way should a series of, as it were, cascading developments be allowed to change policy in the way she is concerned about.

David Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me ask this question. May I raise with the Leader of the House an issue about which I am sure he is concerned, namely, access for disabled people to the House of Commons? Yesterday, three of my constituents from the Marlborough school in Woodstock, all of whom were wheelchair-bound, came to visit the House for Prime Minister's Questions. The Serjeant at Arms, the police and the Admissions Order Office were incredibly helpful; but is the Leader of the House aware that wheelchair users who want to watch Prime Minister's Questions are confined to staying behind the stone façade at the back of the Gallery? Does he agree that we really ought to do more, in 2003, to ensure that disabled constituents can come to the House of Commons and get a proper view of the proceedings and be treated better? Frankly, despite all the best efforts of the authorities of the House—who were magnificent—the current arrangements are not good enough.

Peter Hain: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, and that of other Members. The House authorities are trying to deal with it. Access to the House for members of the public is crucial, and we must take a much more reformist approach to it. That applies to people with disabilities, and to other members of the community. I am keen for us to have a visitors' centre and a proper walkway, perhaps leading from the Members' Entrance, so that visitors can queue under cover rather than being stuck out in the rain. They are, after all, citizens of this country. They are the people who vote us into this place. We should treat them with more respect, whether they have disabilities—the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to that issue—or not.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: As my right hon. Friend will know, in 2004 the Government will introduce regulations on consultation in the workplace, and are encouraging people to meet those standards as soon as possible. Will he set a really good example in this regard? Will he not just consult all unions, workers and parliamentary staff in the Houses of Parliament, but at least consult MPs again about the unworkable, unhelpful and even rather debilitating changed sitting hours?

Peter Hain: I am indeed consulting all Members—including my hon. Friend, who has spoken to me about these matters and will, I am sure, continue to do so. I want to secure consensus, because, as I have said, there are strong views on both sides. We want to ensure that this is a modern place reflecting modern life outside.

Eric Forth: Why?

Peter Hain: I think that if we are not a House of Commons that reflects life outside, we will cease to command the respect of people outside.

George Osborne: Were this week's articles by the Chancellor of the Exchequer part of the Government's euro roadshow campaign? To allay the fears of some of us who suspect that the roadshow does not exist, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many events he has attended since I last asked him this question? He boasted then that he had attended a meeting of the Welsh euro organising committee—a very exciting event. What other exciting events has he attended since?

Peter Hain: Another meeting.

Jimmy Wray: Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to come to the House as soon as possible? Talk of interest rate increases always gives the jitters to first-time home buyers. We do not want to return to the 1980s under the last Government. I want the Chancellor to give an assurance that we will not see houses being repossessed, people being thrown out of their homes, and double-figure interest rates.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to question the Chancellor during next week's Treasury questions, but I can reassure him and his constituents that there is no prospect of a return to the sky-high interest rates and mortgage levels that we experienced under the Conservative Government. They dispossessed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, caused negative equity, and created the economic blight from which we, as a Labour Government, had to recover.
	Our present interest rates are historically low for modern times, and the economic stability locked in by this Government will keep them low. Nevertheless, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want inflation to rise on the back of a strong economy, affecting his constituents and causing pressures on interest rates. That is the issue with which the Bank of England has grappled, and I think that it made the right decision today.

John Barrett: The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that personal debt has increased by more than 50 per cent. during the Government's lifetime, and, with increasing interest rates expected, the problem is growing at a massive rate. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on debt in the United Kingdom in either this or the next Session?

Peter Hain: The truth is that debt is much more easy to finance with the current low interest rates, and indeed with foreseeable rates. Under the Conservatives' high interest rates, debt levels were difficult to manage and many people were plunged into penury and poverty. The present economic stability, better job opportunities, high employment rates and overall strength of the economy mean that we are unlikely to experience the problem that worries the hon. Gentleman.

Linda Perham: As my right hon. Friend knows, at the beginning of the year the Central line was closed for three months. Will he raise with our colleagues in the Department of Transport my constituents' concern about the long delays in the handling of compensation claims? Some have been able to obtain satisfaction only by making representations to me, and through my interventions.

Peter Hain: I understand that £8 million has been paid so far in refunds. The Secretary of State for Transport will address my hon. Friend' s concern about the difficulty of securing compensation, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter.

Alistair Carmichael: The Leader of the House commented earlier on the state visit by President Bush. Might it be possible to raise with him the deep concern felt by many Members about the case of my fellow Scot Kenny Richey, currently on death row in Ohio? Those who are concerned include the 75 signatories to early-day motion 1593, which states
	That this House notes the recent decision by the Home Office to grant Kenny Richey British citizenship; further notes that Mr Richey has spent 16 years on death row in the State of Ohio for the alleged murder of a two-year-old girl killed in a fire at her mother's apartment; notes that following the case having been heard at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on 7th May a final decision is expected before August as to whether he should face execution; notes that important forensic and eye witness evidence has come to light since the original verdict was reached which casts serious doubt on the safety of the conviction; notes, however, that under US law new evidence produced after a certain time does not provide grounds for a reversal; and therefore calls on the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to make direct and robust representation to the state authorities, the Governor of Ohio and the President of the United States on behalf of Kenny Richey at the earliest opportunity, the eventual objective being to secure clemency.
	As the right hon. Gentleman may know, there is substantial doubt about the safety of Kenny Richey's conviction. If his execution is allowed to go ahead without that doubt being addressed, there will be an enduring stain on the reputation of the United States for fairness and justice.

Peter Hain: I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point of view and to his request. As he will appreciate, this Government and this country oppose the death penalty, whether imposed within our own boundaries or anywhere else in the world.

Anne Campbell: The lives of many of my constituents are being blighted by antisocial behaviour—aggressive begging, drunk and disorderly conduct and noisy neighbours—and also by criminal behaviour. Residential properties are being used for drug dealing and prostitution. I know that the Government have introduced some good legislation, and I find it enormously frustrating when local authorities and the police do not respond properly to it. May we have an early debate on their effectiveness or otherwise in responding to what is already on the statute book?

Peter Hain: As my hon. Friend says, we have already introduced provisions to tackle antisocial behaviour, which is a scourge throughout the country, not least in constituencies such as mine. I share her frustration at the failure of police forces, local authorities and other agencies to implement those provisions. She will have an opportunity to address the problem when the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill returns from the House of Lords, although we are particularly frustrated at the way in which the House of Lords is itself frustrating the democratic wish of MPs and the elected Government to tackle the problem by trying to amend and disable the Bill. We shall have to do something about that when it comes back to the Commons.

David Burnside: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to come here and make a statement on why he is refusing to answer a number of sensitive questions? On 20 October I tabled a question asking the Secretary of State to outline the sanctions and powers of the international monitoring body to take action against parties such as Sinn Fein in relation to past terrorist activities. He refused to answer that, and also the question I tabled on 30 October asking him to make a statement on the arms and explosives held by all republican and loyalist paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Yet this House voted to go to war on the basis of public information brought to it on weapons of mass destruction—arms and explosives that threatened us.

Peter Hain: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regularly makes himself accountable to the House. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, he was at the Dispatch Box only a few weeks ago. He will have noted the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I must leave it at that.

Clive Betts: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a wide-ranging debate on the Government's success in reducing economic and social divisions? In particular, will he ask Ministers to talk about the significant improvement in local authority funding, compared with the capping, cuts and poll tax that went before? We could also talk about the 1 million jobs that have been created under this Government, the successful introduction of the minimum wage, which it was forecast would lose 2 million jobs, the abolition of the incredibly discriminatory section 28, and the improved workers' rights, compared with the anti-worker attitude of the previous Administration. I am sure that the House could have an interesting and wide-ranging debate on those matters.

Peter Hain: I am sure that we could, too, especially as the policy that my hon. Friend identified—opposition to a minimum wage—was led by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who projected that introducing it would lead to 2 million job losses. What have we seen instead? Some 1.6 million new jobs have been created while the minimum wage has been in force. On that policy, and on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's record on the poll tax, and of presiding over rising unemployment, we can have a debate.

David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the council tax is nearly, but not quite, as unpopular as that legacy of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the poll tax. When we hear the local authority settlement and the police authority settlement, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is plenty of time for all Members who wish to do so to express their constituents' anger about having to pay more and more, without any benefit accruing to either local authorities or local services? Better still, will he introduce a debate on the abolition of the council tax and its replacement with a fair alternative?

Peter Hain: I would be very happy to have a debate on that policy, because the Liberal Democrats' policy of a local income tax could add up to 6p in the pound to income tax. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting, as the first part of his question implied, that levels of council tax are causing anything like the outcry caused by the poll tax?

David Heath: indicated assent.

Peter Hain: In that case, is the hon. Gentleman advocating a return to the poll tax? I think we should be told.

David Heath: I think I clearly said not.

Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the possible threat of even further industrial action in the fire service. Will he use his good offices to remind all those concerned of the dangerous and damaging consequences, not only for the general public but for the morale of firefighters themselves, should any action be taken? Will he use his influence to ensure that both parties will have every opportunity to reach a satisfactory conclusion before any ministerial intervention?

Peter Hain: We are all concerned about the situation affecting the fire service, especially as, although a generous pay settlement was agreed between the union and the authorities, including extra pay increases for modernisation, there now seems to be an impasse in some sections of the Fire Brigades Union, and an unwillingness to accept the quid pro quo of extra pay, over and above the general public sector settlement, in exchange for modernisation. That is the issue that needs to be resolved, round the table rather than on the picket line.

Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate about the rules governing the portrayal of parliamentarians in the House of Commons art collection? Is this not a timely moment to examine the way in which the rules governing, for example, the portrayal of former and current Leaders of the Opposition work, and perhaps commission some suitable modern art? Could we not ask Damian Hirst to produce a suitably realistic presentation of both the current and the former Leader of the Opposition?

Peter Hain: I think that that would be a very good idea.

Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1868, about a chlorine emergency at Staveley in my constituency?
	[That this House calls for a full investigation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs into the escape of chlorine at Staveley in Derbyshire from the chemical works of Rhodia Eco Services which led to workers being taken to hospital, children locked in schools, the blocking of a wide section of the town and residents having to follow emergency procedures for a considerable length of time with many being unable to return to their homes; and requires action to be taken so that nothing similar will occur in the future.]
	That took place on Monday at Rhodia Eco Services, and the escape of chlorine gas led to areas of Staveley being blocked off for several hours, with all the disruption that that caused in schools and elsewhere. May we have a written statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the role of the Health and Safety Executive in examining that episode? The statement could also cover the fact that, with the honourable exception of Peak FM, Radio Hallam and today's Derbyshire Times, the media carried little about the incident, because we happen to be at the edge of several different media areas. That major crisis should have been given the type of coverage that it was entitled to, which probably adds to the case that I am making for the Health and Safety Executive to take firm action to ensure that nothing like that happens in the town again.

Peter Hain: I assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State shares his concern about that serious incident, which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have brought to the attention of the House. I am sure that she will want to take the matter up and make a written ministerial statement about it at some point.

Paul Flynn: Would not a debate on the unneeded surplus in the national insurance fund help the Government to find a practical solution to help the Allied Steel and Wire workers? At the end of the financial year there will be a £30 billion surplus—£20 billion above the necessary contingency fund. The fund has already been used for extraneous purposes, such as compensating industry for green taxes, which cost £2 billion a year. Would it not be reasonable, just and practical to use a tiny part of that huge surplus to compensate the Allied Steel and Wire pensioners?

Peter Hain: I know that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has looked closely at such matters, because he, like the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has received a delegation from the ASW workers, along with MPs who have, quite properly, been concerned about the situation. I shall ensure that he is aware of my hon. Friend's proposition.

Bob Blizzard: There has been a good deal of discussion in the House about the European Union constitution, but it has emerged only recently that it is to include an energy chapter. There is a great deal of concern that that could involve ceding competence over this country's oil and gas reserves to the European Union. May we have a debate on that important subject? Most Members are pleased that the Government have made taxation a red line issue, but many would wish to express the view that the licensing and control of our oil and gas reserves, which we have exercised since they were discovered in 1964, should also be a red line issue.

Peter Hain: Indeed, I tabled an amendment on that matter on behalf of the Government in the proceedings of the Convention on the Future of Europe. It was one of the few unresolved issues on which we still need a proper outcome in the negotiations. I assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is proceeding along the lines that he advocates. Licensing must indeed remain a matter to be supervised and directed as it is at present—and other countries, including the Netherlands, share our position, so I think I can reassure him that we shall get an outcome that he will find satisfactory.

Point of Order

Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us whether you have received notification either from a Home Office Minister or from a Defence Minister of an intention to make a statement about the implications for homeland security of recent reports of incidents on the high seas that suggest that al-Qaeda-type organisations have it in mind to use large tankers or merchantmen as airliners were used to attack America? This is a very worrying development, and the House should have an opportunity to discuss it.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no notification, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be noted by the appropriate Minister.

Modernisation

[Relevant Document: The First Report from the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 2002–03, HC 1222, relating to Programming of Bills.]

Peter Hain: I beg to move,
	That Orders A to I relating to the Programming of Bills, made by the House on 28th June 2001, and programme orders of the current session of Parliament relating to bills which are carried over to the next session, shall continue to have effect in the next session of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
	That the Order relating to Deferred Divisions, made by the House on 28th June 2001, shall continue to have effect in the next session Parliament.

Peter Hain: We have two motions before us this afternoon. The first is a motion to renew for the next Session the Sessional Orders on the programming of Bills, which were first agreed by the House on 28 June 2001 and renewed for the current Session on 29 October last year. The second motion provides for the Sessional Orders on deferred Divisions to continue to have effect in the next Session.
	As the Order Paper indicates, the first report of the Modernisation Committee, on the programming of Bills, is relevant to the debate. I am grateful to my colleagues on the Modernisation Committee for the positive way in which they engaged in producing this report. They have produced a constructive and thoughtful report on a complex and sometimes contentious matter. Notwithstanding the minority report submitted by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose sincere and principled objections to programming I acknowledge, in the end the Committee adopted the final report unanimously and without division.
	The Committee's report sets out the context in which this afternoon's debate will, I hope, proceed. We accept that the programming of parliamentary business does not always work as well as we might wish, but properly enacted, programming is a positive development, allowing more effective scrutiny of legislation. The notion that the scrutiny of Bills should be subject to a parliamentary timetable has been a staple recommendation of parliamentary and independent reports for the past 20 years. In 1985, the Procedure Committee recommended that Bills be timetabled. In 1992, the Jopling Committee reiterated that proposal and in the same year the independent Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process regarded it as a central feature of any reforms to improve scrutiny. And in 1997, the Modernisation Committee's first report highlighted the importance of programming legislation, stating that other proposals for improving the legislative process—such as the scrutiny of draft Bills—could not be seen in isolation from the legislative timetable.
	It is in this context that I hope we can debate this afternoon's motions. I urge all Members to recognise that, as paragraph 9 of the Modernisation Committee's report points out,
	"there was never a 'golden age' of full scrutiny of all clauses of all bills; on the contrary, prior to the introduction of programming, there was deep and widespread dissatisfaction with the haphazard nature of scrutiny, which led to . . . considerable pressure from Members and others, over a number of years, for some form of timetabling of Government bills to be introduced; and . . . the procedures whereby bills might be programmed have been the subject of careful consideration in the past".
	Of course, the effectiveness of any such system relies on the way in which it is implemented. The Modernisation Committee's report is candid about the pros and cons of the way in which the current provisions are enacted:
	"When it works well, it is of benefit, a) to the Government, which is assured of getting its legislative programme; b) to the Opposition, which is assured of having adequate time to scrutinise those parts of a bill to which it attaches importance; and c) to the country as a whole, which benefits from better legislation."

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The reality is that if the report states boldly that it is important to understand that programming is here to stay, and then proceeds to discuss various reasons why it might not necessarily be the best thing, it is difficult to believe that it is quite as balanced a report as my right hon. Friend suggests.

Peter Hain: In the end, this is a matter for the House to decide, but my hon. Friend will agree that criticisms of the way in which programming has been handled and suggestions as to how it could be improved will have to be taken into account by the Government in years to come.
	In keeping with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the report acknowledges that programming has not always worked well in practice. When things do not go according to plan,
	"it can result in legislation receiving inadequate scrutiny leading to frustration on all sides as well as the increased danger that the House will pass defective legislation."
	The essence of its success lies in the spirit of co-operation between those acting for the Government and those acting for the Opposition on a particular Bill—a point stressed in evidence given to the Committee by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Government believe that where the main parties engage positively in discussions on the programme, programming can, and does, work well.
	The Government will consider carefully how they can respond to the Modernisation Committee's recommendations; we look to the Opposition to do likewise. For these reasons, the Modernisation Committee endorses the continued use of programme motions governed by the existing Sessional Orders. It recommends no change to the motions before us, reflecting the belief that any existing problems lie not with the Sessional Orders themselves, but with the way in which they are sometimes operated.
	The second motion before us relates to the provisions for deferred Divisions. I am aware that when deferred Divisions were introduced, some Members had objections in principle to the separation of decision from debate, and were concerned that they would impact on attendance and the vigour of debate. I do not believe that those concerns have been borne out in practice; most Members find the deferral of Divisions in certain well-defined circumstances to be of great convenience.
	I hope that this afternoon's debate can be conducted not in a spirit of partisanship, but with a wider concern for the quality of parliamentary scrutiny. Both motions should be debated in the context of the wider package of reforms implemented in the past few years—including pre-legislative scrutiny—which is designed to make the Commons more effective and efficient. For example, the massive increase in the number of draft Bills produced by Government in the past few years has undoubtedly enhanced the Commons' ability to scrutinise and shape legislation. I reaffirm our commitment to continuing to produce more Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny.
	We could all point to individual events, taken in isolation, in which practice has not lived up to theory, and the Modernisation Committee's report highlights such concerns frankly and openly. However, solutions lie not in petty point-scoring, but in grown-up politics, and I urge Members to take a broader view, so that this debate can be conducted in that spirit. For my part, I will continue to listen to all proposals for reform that will strengthen and enhance parliamentary scrutiny. I commend the motions to the House.

Eric Forth: I disagree with almost everything that the Leader of the House has just said, but I want to make it clear from the start—lest anyone listening to today's debate or reading the subsequent Hansard account be under any illusion—that this ghastly, so-called Modernisation Committee is, and has been, simply a vehicle through which a Government with a very large majority can reduce the role of the House of Commons in properly scrutinising legislation. That is what it has been and has become. The Modernisation Committee is not some misty-eyed, impartial philosophical guardian of the rights of the House of Commons; it is a Committee of the House with a very large Government majority, chaired by a Cabinet Minister. Although it is deemed to be a Select Committee, it is a vehicle for the wish of the Government. It saddens me that this Government, to whom the electorate gave an enormous majority in 1997 and 2001, have seen fit to abuse that majority by effectively reducing the House of Commons' role in a number of ways.
	Because we are considering two specific motions and a Modernisation Committee report, we are examining only two ways in which the role of the House of Commons has been altered—not irrevocably but for the time being, a point to which I shall return. For my modest contribution to today's debate, I thought that I could do no better than to pick out some items in the report with which I agree, and some with which I disagree. To my surprise, there are one or two items with which I do indeed agree, but I disagree with most of them.
	Let us start with paragraph 11(a), which states:
	"The Government of the day must be assured of getting its legislation through in reasonable time (provided that it can obtain the approval of the House)."
	In a sense, that sums up rather well this Government's attitude. They begin by stating that the relationship between the Government of the day and the House of Commons should be such that the former must get their legislation through "in reasonable time". By way of a footnote, one has to ask the interesting question of whether they mean through Parliament, or through the House of Commons. Of course, there is a very important distinction to be made here. Although the Government have reduced to a rather pathetic shadow of its former self the House of Commons' role in holding them to account, happily, the House of Lords is still very much alive and kicking. These days, the House of Lords does most of the work in holding the Government to account. It sits longer and more often—

Peter Hain: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the next sub-paragraph? He read out paragraph 11(a)—that the
	"Government of the day must be assured of getting its legislation"—
	but not the next sub-paragraph, which states:
	"The Opposition in particular, and Members in general must have a full opportunity to discuss and seek to change provisions to which they attach importance."
	Furthermore, paragraph 12(c) states:
	"All parts of a bill must be properly considered."
	The truth is that, as a result of the reforms that we have introduced, scrutiny in the House is now more effective than ever before.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that, which is the crux of the debate. What he has just said is an absurd proposition, to which we shall return in more detail in a few moments.
	I want to focus the House's attention on the central proposition. What worries me is the Government's assumption that, having been given a large majority by the electorate, they have the right to legislate to an unlimited extent, at will, regardless of the wishes of the House of Commons. The Government believe that their role is to alter our procedures so that they can get their legislation through with the minimum of inconvenience and fuss. That is the central proposition, to which I take great exception.
	I have spent 20 years in this place, first through the 1980s as a Government Back Bencher and subsequently as a Minister. Even with the large majority that we enjoyed in 1983, we did not fiddle with the procedures of the House in order to make life easier or reduce the opportunities available to the Opposition. As a Back Bencher and then a Minister, I spent many hours in Committee allowing the Opposition to determine the amount of time a Committee devoted to a particular Bill. We brought in a guillotine or timetable motion only when the Government viewed the time period as excessive—a point to which I shall return in a few moments. The key point is the presumption that Ministers alone decide how much time the House and Standing Committees will take to consider legislation. That is what has undermined the role that Members of Parliament, particularly the Opposition, can play.

Phil Woolas: Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer the old practice of guillotining, which he and other Conservative Ministers exercised and which was exclusively at the discretion of the Executive, to timetabling, which the House, through its Programming Sub-Committee, is allowed under the current arrangements?

Eric Forth: The answer is yes. An informative table is appended to the excellent minority report of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I was hoping that someone would allow me to raise this matter and the Deputy Leader of the House has provided me with an opportunity to do so.
	I draw the House's attention to page 31 of the report, which highlights the Education Bill of the 1992–93 Session. It had 255 clauses and 17 schedules, and the date of the allocation of time motion was 15 December 1992. The time allowed under that motion required the Standing Committee to report by 9 February 1993, but 18 subsequent sittings were allowed after the motion had been introduced. That is important for several reasons—not only because of the dedication and excellence of the Minister in charge of the Bill at the time, whose name for the moment escapes me. If pressed, I am sure that I could remember it. I was told at the time that it was the biggest Education Bill that had ever been brought before the House.
	In the 1980s and on to the 1990s, it was standard practice to allow up to 150 hours in Committee—occasionally, at the discretion of the Opposition, even up to 200—before the Government took the view that it was necessary to introduce a guillotine. That is why my reply to the Deputy Leader of the House is that I prefer the earlier approach. What often happened was that the then Opposition, now the Government, would expend considerable time—sometimes two or three days—debating the sittings motion. Hon. Members who had the privilege of being in the House at the time will recall that that was the Opposition's choice; that was how they chose to spend their time in Committee—I have no complaints about that. We then allowed them to spend weeks and months in Committee—again at their discretion—to debate the legislation. Only after a very long lapse of time would the Government, with some reluctance, introduce a guillotine motion.
	Yes, I preferred that approach. Under the current system, even before a Committee has embarked on its work, the Government decide how much time it will take and then often introduce what we call "knives".

David Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman is being selective in his choice of Bills. Does he recall, for example, the Transport Bill 1985? Because of the guillotine imposed by Conservative Ministers at the time, many important clauses and schedules—particularly on pensions—were never debated at all. Is not the present timetabling method much better and fairer than the guillotine?

Eric Forth: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is no. He and I could wander together down memory lane, and I would be happy to do so. However, if we were to examine the entrails of that Bill and look into the amount of time taken by the then Opposition in the Standing Committee and what particular issues were discussed, I suspect that it would considerably weaken the hon. Gentleman's point. At the moment I cannot remember the Bill in detail, but I would not mind betting that he and his hon. Friends probably spent the first sitting or two debating the timetable motion—no doubt with reference to grandmothers, tea cakes, holidays, the weather and all the other subjects so much beloved by the Opposition at the time.

David Marshall: I have to agree in part with the right hon. Gentleman's point. That may have been true of some hon. Members, but others on our side of the House did not like that method of operation because it prevented us from getting to the meat of the Bill. The present timetabling process is, I believe, fairer.

Eric Forth: That should have been a matter for the hon. Gentleman to sort out with his hon. Friends. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills—his work has brought this problem out—to make the point more forcibly than I could that any attempt to argue that we are getting more effective scrutiny of Bills under the present system of arbitrary timetabling before a Committee even embarks on its work than under the old system cannot be sustained. The truth is that, under the current system, very substantial parts of large and important Bills are not being addressed by the Standing Committees at all because of the arbitrary nature of the guillotining that takes place, as I have said, before the Committee starts its work. I cannot make the point often enough that under the old system the Committee was allowed to start its deliberations and it was the Opposition—back then, as now, Government Back Benchers said very little—who were allowed to decide which clauses were debated and at what rate of progress. I cannot help it if the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and his hon. Friends fell out over it. I cannot help it if the hon. Gentleman sat there mute, waiting for his favourite clause to come up, while his hon. Friends were occupying endless time talking about irrelevancies. That is the hon. Gentleman's problem. If he and his hon. Friends wasted time, that is not for me to explain.

Richard Shepherd: One crucial difference is that under the old arrangements to which my right hon. Friend refers, the Opposition had at least an opportunity to present arguments as to why a guillotine might have been inappropriate. We had a three-hour debate on the guillotine. If my right hon. Friend looks through the list in the report, he will see that the guillotine was often not applied until a breakdown of business in the Committee took place.

Eric Forth: That is indeed the case and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing it out. A subsidiary but important matter is how far one had the opportunity to debate the guillotining in itself—an opportunity that the Government have all but done away with. That was an important part of the procedure at the time, which is sadly no longer the case.
	Let us move on to paragraph 13 of the report, which states:
	"The Government will inevitably get its legislation"—
	and then generously adds,
	"subject to the agreement of the House."
	I do not believe that there should be any inevitability about the Government getting its legislation at all. Funnily enough, although we now find ourselves at the end of the Session, much legislation is still being dealt with in another place. We in the House of Commons are marking time. Sadly, it is becoming embarrassingly obvious that there is very little substantive business for us to do, while the House of Lords is doing the real business of holding the Government to account.
	For the Government or the Committee—they are the same thing, effectively—to have the gall and the impudence to say that the Government will inevitably get their legislation gives the game away and shows the Government's attitude to the parliamentary process. I hope that the Government will not inevitably get their legislation, if only because they are trying to stuff too much legislation through the parliamentary process. They can easily get their legislation through the House of Commons because of the mechanism that we are discussing—the programming of Bills—but happily still in the House of Lords, where the Government do not have a majority and cannot control the timetable, they will not inevitably get their legislation. Indeed, they may have to give up some of it—parts of Bills or Bills in their entirety. So even that statement, which gives the lie to the Government's attitude to the parliamentary process, happily is not true.

Phil Woolas: The picture painted by the right hon. Gentleman suggests to the public and to the House that the Government are not allowing time. Will he consider two comparative statistics? In the 1991–92 Session, the House considered 17 Bills, to which 295 hours were devoted in Standing Committee. Ten years later, in the 2000–01 Session, again the House considered 17 Bills, which took up 301 hours in Standing Committee. Do those statistics not show that what the right hon. Gentleman is arguing is simply not true?

Eric Forth: No, of course not. That shows the superficial nature of the Minister's understanding of the way the House works. Without looking at the Bills in great detail—their size, complexity and how controversial or otherwise they are—one cannot make a judgment. The raw figures tell us nothing, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will tell us something.

Richard Shepherd: Yes. We must remember that the first period cited by the Minister was the run-up to the 1992 general election, and in the arrangements between the Whips Offices—the "usual channels", as they were called—a huge number of deals were done to expedite business to clear the decks for the general election that was to follow.

Eric Forth: Which I personally regret. I would much rather the Opposition of the day had prevented that process from happening, regardless who was in government. It is true that when we were in government, we were allowed to get away with murder by slack opposition, which I hope will not happen again.
	I move on to paragraph 19, in which there is something that I agree with. There is not much that I agree with in the report, but in fairness I thought I had better identify one or two paragraphs with which I could agree. Paragraph 19 states:
	"There is a danger that, where programme orders specify unnecessarily short timetables, or where time is badly allocated within the overall limits set out in the original programme order, programming will be seen as only a convenience for the Government, allowing it to get legislation through the House in a hurry."
	I agree. That is the case. When I comment on the deferred Divisions issue, I shall repeat the word that the Leader of the House let slip: convenience. That is so much the hallmark of the attitude of the Government and Ministers to the House. We are now all about convenience—convenience for the Government, convenience for Members of Parliament—and it has become the present Government's watchword. Nothing must be done that is inconvenient to the Government or to Members of Parliament. Hence the programming of Standing Committees, the change of hours and so many other measures that the Government have introduced, all of which are, in my view, detrimental to the effective role of the House and the Opposition in dealing with the Government and their proposed legislation.
	Paragraph 25 goes on to state:
	"The purpose of programming is to enhance the House's scrutiny of bills, not to curtail legitimate debate."
	How on earth a Committee, even one with a Government majority and even one chaired by a Cabinet Minister, can have the impertinence to say that escapes me. The entire purpose of programming is precisely to curtail debate and to facilitate the Government's legislation.
	I say that with some confidence because it is half hinted at, or half admitted, in the report that the Government believe that at the time of Second Reading—the in-principle debate on a Bill—they can foretell how much time a Standing Committee will require to consider a Bill. That indicates that they have no wish to allow the Committee to deliberate properly or even to decide how much time it should take. Before the process even starts, the Government say, "We think the Bill should take three weeks." How can they possibly know that about Bills with a large number of clauses and schedules and many complexities?
	Until the Standing Committee is constituted and the legitimate outside interest groups make their input to the process, the Government cannot know how long proper scrutiny or consideration of a Bill will take. Yet the whole philosophy of programming set out in the report and in the motions before us rest on that very assumption. It is that to which I take such exception.
	Paragraph 25 goes on to claim that the process is of benefit
	"to the Opposition, which is assured of having adequate time".
	The Opposition are not assured of anything of the kind, for the reasons that I have just given. Quite the opposite—the Opposition are denied the time that they may wish to have to scrutinise a Bill.
	Then we come to the phrase in paragraph 28 that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) picked up in her intervention:
	"It is important for all sides to recognise that programming is here to stay".
	What arrogance. What impertinence on the part of the Government. How can they say that or know that? I do not believe that programming is here to stay. They might have said, "We believe that programming is here for as long as we are in government and prepared to hold the House of Commons under our jackboot." That might have been accurate, but as soon as we are in government, I hope that programming will not be here to stay.
	I hope I can give an undertaking from the Dispatch Box that we would seek to reverse that. In any case, in a strict parliamentary sense, that statement is not and cannot be true, because each Parliament, happily, decides its own arrangements for procedures and Standing Orders. The assertion in paragraph 28 is invalid and untrue.
	In paragraph 30 the report deals with timing and makes the valid comment that
	"points raised during the second reading debate may be taken into account when decisions are taken about how to allocate time to each part of the bill."
	In that respect, I acknowledge that a small concession and a little progress has been made. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) tells me that it was his amendment. I congratulate him on persuading the Committee at least of that. I remain to be convinced. I should like to think that that will happen, I hope it will, but I shall believe it when I see it. If the Government are prepared to make that small concession, I hope that they will wait a decent interval after the Second Reading debate to get some sense of what the House, various Members and outside interest groups feel, and make some adjustment to the time that a Bill spends in Standing Committee. I should like to think that that would be a small step in the right direction, but I am not sure that it will happen.
	I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to tell the House the thrust of his excellent minority report. Suffice to say that I agree with the point that he made and the direction in which he wanted to take the Committee, and I regret that the Committee did not feel that it could support his minority report.
	It should be obvious by now that I shall not vote for the motions. They seek to apply to future Sessions of Parliament arrangements that have turned out to be completely unsatisfactory. I regret that that is the attitude of Ministers and the Government to our parliamentary proceedings. If one wanted to see any proof of how easy life has been made for the Government, one has only to look at the fact that the Leader of the House can now predict the calendar for an entire year ahead.
	One has only to look at the reduced number of sittings. The Leader of the House keeps telling us, because it is what his script tells him, that the House is not sitting fewer days or hours than it did. That is not so. We used to sit on Fridays, regularly and routinely. Fridays have all gone except, happily, for the 13 private Member's Bill Fridays, to which I look forward so much and in which I seek to participate as much as possible. Sadly, the other Fridays during which the House used to sit have all disappeared. Where did they go? They have all gone, to be replaced by nothing at all, as far as I can tell.

Peter Hain: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have introduced debates in Westminster Hall, which—[Interruption.] He shrugs in scorn, but there is greater opportunity for Members to raise issues and subject Ministers to scrutiny and accountability in Westminster Hall, and many of his Back Benchers take advantage of that. We must consider the changes on Friday and in other respects as part of a rounded whole. On scrutiny, the Liaison Committee now periodically holds the Prime Minister to account. That never happened before, and is another move forward in parliamentary scrutiny under this Government. With regard to Fridays, would Conservative Back Benchers and some of his Front Benchers prefer to give up their constituency Fridays and come back to the House on Friday mornings at his request?

Eric Forth: I would hope that all hon. Members would rather be doing their duties at Westminster if that opportunity were given to them. It is a matter for individual decision, but I would always give priority to my duties at Westminster and I hope that that would be the case for all other Members of Parliament.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: We used to have on Fridays debates that were not simply the equivalent of Adjournment debates. We had the power to table proposals on which a vote could be held. It was because of that power that the Abortion Act 1967 went ahead and the law on homosexual behaviour changed. Back Benchers could decide whether they approved or disapproved of various controversial matters, but they do not have that power today and it is important that we make that clear.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Yes, we did have legislative Fridays—if I may put it like that—and to talk about the silly sideshow that is Westminster Hall is not good enough. Fortunately, we cannot legislate in Westminster Hall and, given the gold-plated undertaking by a former Leader of the House that we will never legislate in Westminster Hall, it can be no substitute for proper sittings of the House in this Chamber on a Friday. I do not accept that argument.
	As for the claim that the Prime Minister now appears before the Liaison Committee, that is all very well for the great and the grand of the House, but what about us ordinary punters who might want to have a chance to question the Prime Minister occasionally? I shall have a further point to make about the Prime Minister when I discuss deferred Divisions, which are one of the biggest insults to the House that we have seen in my memory. It was always thought, certainly by those outside the House, that there was a direct link between a debate taking place and a vote taking place. It was assumed that Members of Parliament would be in the Chamber, or at least would have the opportunity to be in the Chamber, to listen to a debate and then to vote on it. If there were consequential Divisions, that would certainly have to be the case. Now we have the insult of deferred Divisions. If a debate comes on inconveniently late, which may now mean after 7 pm, it appears that it would be an imposition on Members to expect them to tarry in the House to cast their vote. Therefore, the debate may take place, but everyone except those taking part may leave the premises to return several days later and cast their vote on the issue on a ballot paper. That is not what I thought the House of Commons was about when I first arrived here.
	The position is even worse than I have described so far. The deferred votes take place—surprise, surprise—just at the time when the Prime Minister makes one of his rare, once-a-week visits to the House of Commons, so that he may take part in the balloted Divisions and slightly boost his voting record, which is dismal at best. We have the double whammy of Members being able to vote on a debate that they did not attend and for which they were not even in the building, and the Prime Minister coming along to vote on something of which he was blissfully unaware. That is the height of absurdity and the essence of the Government's attitude to the House of Commons and its proceedings. Debates are an irrelevance—apparently—and now so are votes.
	I hope that the business of deferred decisions turns out to be an anomaly that we get rid of as soon as we are in a position to do so. I hope that it does not fall into the category of changes that the report described as here for ever. Nothing in this House—at least so far—is for ever, and successive Parliaments review such matters. I hope that that turns out to be the case in this instance. I deprecate the appearance of these matters on the Order Paper today. I shall oppose them and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to do so, too.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Parliaments are only as effective as their Members, and how they organise their affairs is fundamental to the way in which they present themselves to the general public. At present, there is much debate about the inability of parliamentarians to engender support in the population and to attract young people to vote and take part in political life. There is a direct connection between that and the way in which Parliaments behave.
	The Leader of the House was kind enough to suggest that we view the changes that we are debating today in terms of the overall package. He suggested that we should look not only at this report, but at all the other changes that have been made. That is what I intend to do, from the strong belief that we are taking the wrong direction. The report contains many bland and unexceptional comments. It says that the Opposition should have the right to have their views heard, that the Government should have enough time for their business, that we should have sufficient time to scrutinise Bills and that, under no circumstances, should the Government table hundreds of amendments at a late stage in a Bill's progress. It is not difficult to agree with all those sentiments. We all want a Parliament that has sufficient time to scrutinise Bills. It also needs to understand the implications of legislation but, increasingly, that is not the case.
	We must consider the effect of the changes that have taken place. The hours of sitting have changed massively and that directly affects the times at which we see our constituents, the amount of work that we can do, the work of Select Committees and access to the House for those outside. For example, school parties from my constituency, which is not close to the House of Commons, cannot go round the House as they once could. The work of Select Committees has been affected. Because everything is concentrated into two days in the middle of the week, Select Committees are constantly interrupted by Divisions. A Select Committee may be questioning someone on issues of considerable importance to the general public, such as railway or air services, but it must constantly suspend its sitting for Divisions.

Barbara Follett: My hon. Friend has much experience in the House—far more than I have—but I disagree with her. Our work is not concentrated into two days. We sit Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. People choose to concentrate Committee sittings into Tuesdays and Wednesdays, but Select Committees are free to meet on Mondays or Thursdays.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am happy to meet on any day of the week that my Committee members choose, but we have already altered the times of our Committee sittings more than once and it has no effect because the Government choose to concentrate the work of the House into two days, leaving a large amount of space at either end of the week.
	The reality is that we have not improved scrutiny. Time after time, the Government table amendments on Third Reading—and even after a Bill has been to the other place and returned. We are frequently told that an issue raised in a Bill is important but that it was not discussed in Committee because of the timetable motion. It is fashionable to claim—as the report does—that there was never a golden age in which legislation was properly scrutinised. That was the line taken by the previous Leader of the House, who of course did not himself take a great part in any of the boring chores of looking carefully at legislation.
	The way we work has changed, and for the worse. I do not say that the House of Commons should never alter its procedures. It has done so consistently ever since I came here and it has done so for 300 to 400 years without any obvious inability to adjust to the problems of the time. However, the reality is that changes such as deferred voting, timetabling for pieces of legislation or concentrating debates within controlled hours do not improve the quality of Bills or debates. That is a matter of considerable concern. Back Benchers have lost, by a salami-slicing technique, a number of their original powers to bring forward important political matters, and to get them voted on.
	It is increasingly clear that people outside the House have no respect for Members of Parliament. Why should they? We do not have time to deal with those aspects of life that concern them.
	I am easy to dismiss, as I am very old in relation to this modernising Government and can be regarded as a sort of female Methuselah. However, I have learned one thing since I came to the House—that democracy works only when electors feel that they can identify with what is being done in their name in writing laws or reflecting their views about political problems. They do not want Parliament to be a sort of factory that creates many pages of legislation that they neither see nor understand. They want Parliament to deal with matters that are important to them.
	The Government do much that is good. Why are they so insecure that they have to rubbish parliamentary procedures that developed out of people's needs and understanding over a long period? The Government have all the right instincts, so why are they so insecure in their relationship with the House that they cannot give us the procedures that would allow debate to be as open, lengthy—and, yes, boring—as it used to be?
	For some people, modernisation equals streamlining, the curtailment of debate and of the powers of the awkward squad, and the restriction of the general role of Back Benchers. Long live the role of the awkward squad! The Labour party was created by, and takes its sustenance from, those who constitute the awkward squad. In some areas, they are called democrats, in others Labour Members of Parliament. We must not imagine that the bland clichés of the report are a true reflection of the dangers that we face. The report does not even debate those dangers.
	I am depressed, upset and frightened that the Government constantly want to change the way that Parliament works. If they believe that the changes improve matters, they are mistaken and incompetently ignorant. I do not want to accept that of my Government. Somehow or other, we have lost sight of what Parliaments do. Parliaments discuss, legislate and debate. They often cause the Executive considerable difficulty. Heaven help us if we lose sight of that.

Paul Tyler: It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but I am at one with her eloquent and heartfelt plea for a more effective House of Commons.
	I am a permanent member of the awkward squad. Some say that Liberal Democrats always will be, but that may not be true. However, the central proposition of the speech by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich—that what is before us this afternoon is bland and unexceptional—is true. Some of the Modernisation Committee's members, from all parties, tried to make the report much less bland. We wanted to amend it to make it more robust and to change the Sessional Orders to make the present provisions work better. Unfortunately, we found ourselves up against a brick wall.
	The hon. Lady knows how Select Committees work and has encountered the same wall many times. It is betraying no secrets to say that that brick wall is the Government Whips Office. I wanted to make some practical proposals to improve matters, as I do not think that the present provisions are practical or sustainable in the long run.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made one very important statement—that the previous Conservative Government, of whom he was a member, were allowed to get away with murder. I am grateful to him for putting that statement on the record. If he is reappointed to his current role, I wonder whether he will be allowed to live that down.
	I have great regard for the right hon. Gentleman, and enjoy what he says about how this place works. I have some sympathy with some of the concerns that he has expressed, both in government and in opposition. However, he has called the Modernisation Committee "ghastly", but he is totally ignorant of the Committee's work. Some Conservative Members in the Chamber now have made a positive contribution to the discussions in that Committee, and in the last Parliament, Sir Peter Emery was a driving force in trying to improve the workings of the House. It is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to describe everyone as ghastly, just because he is in one of his gothic moods. If he intends to follow the example of the former leader of the Conservative party and write novels, I hope that he will write something that has its feet on the ground, and not the horror stories to frighten the children that he always tries on in the House.

Andrew Mitchell: I am nervous about the distinction made by the hon. Gentleman between Modernisation Committee members and the excellent, barnstorming speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Conservative Members have more in common with my right hon. Friend than with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to dissociate the views of Conservative members of the Committee from much of what my right hon. Friend set out in his speech.

Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman is a welcome addition to the Committee, but he did not have the opportunity, as I did, to listen to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in the previous Parliament, when he made an important contribution to the Committee's work. That contribution can be seen in several reports. Nor has the hon. Gentleman yet had a full opportunity to hear the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who has made a positive contribution to our discussions over a long period. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are not all ghastly, as claimed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
	I hope that everyone who has witnessed how the changes have operated in recent years will accept two truths—that programming does not work, even in the eyes of people who, like me, have some sympathy with the objectives, and that the previous arrangements of a so-called golden age are a complete will o'the wisp. They never worked particularly well, for a variety of reasons but not least because different parties have different interests. That is why it is important to ensure that the terms of trade—an expression that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire used to use in the Committee—are reasonably well balanced, so that we all can make an intelligent contribution to improving legislation.
	I hope that all hon. Members participating in this debate have read the full report of the Select Committee, including the contribution that comes in the form of an alternative report by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I pay tribute to him, and we are indebted to him for extracting the data about how this business has been handled in the past.
	When people read the report, I hope that they will not assume that we are satisfied with the present arrangements, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, or that the Committee does not have a real wish to improve matters. We are currently frustrated, but the issue will not go away.
	Paragraph 11, to which reference has been made from both the other Front Benches, describes a modest objective: ensuring that different interests in the House are met by the way in which we operate. However, paragraph 25 is the most important one and, if hon. Members have a copy of the report, perhaps they could take this opportunity quickly to read it. It notes that we should be looking for a way of operating that gives the Government a reasonable chance to get their legislative programme through. "Reasonable" is the important word. Some years ago when a colleague and I found ourselves in the relevant Lobby, we counted up the inches of statute that the House had passed from the beginning of the 16th century to 1950. At that moment, it was the same length as the section showing the statutes passed by the House since 1950.
	In this place, we try to consume a huge amount of extremely detailed legislation and we frequently give ourselves legislative indigestion. A previous Modernisation Committee report recommended that other Select Committees should play a larger role in pre-legislative scrutiny. In due course, I hope that that would improve the situation but hon. Members will agree that such work would not be the first choice for Members of Select Committees; they enjoy paying fact-finding visits to other parts of the world much more than scrutinising proposed legislation. I fear that we all tend to have that fault.
	Paragraph 25 also states that Opposition parties have a prime responsibility to identify which parts of a Bill require particular scrutiny. That lays a great responsibility on us. Under the previous arrangements, a great deal of time was taken up in discussion of sittings motions, which neither did justice to the importance of the issues that were to follow nor gave Parliament a good reputation. The most important thing is that we try to ensure that the product of this place is better. We should be in a win-win-win situation. Clearly, we are not at present, but that should be our objective. The Government should be more confident that legislation will be reasonably assessed and scrutinised and that it will be done in time, and the Opposition should have much more influence over the way in which that detailed work is undertaken. At the end of the day, however, it is vital that we pass better legislation.
	I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that we are trying to do far too much. If devolution does nothing else, I hope that eventually it will take away from this place some of the issues that do not need to be dealt with here. The previous Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, had the misfortune to invent a rather ugly word—subsidiarity—but the principle was right: decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people whom they affect. The House still has to find a mechanism for achieving that.

Eric Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Government's desire hitherto to set an end date for a Standing Committee before it has even started puts an artificial onus on all the Committee's members, individually and collectively, and on all the legitimate outside interest groups to compromise their work to fit into the artificiality of those time constraints? Does he agree that it should be the other way around? Before that end date is even thought about, the members of the Committee and the interest groups should wait until they are well into their deliberations so that they can see how much time is reasonably required for them to carry out their work.

Paul Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman has leapt ahead of my argument. I shall come back to his point, with which I have some sympathy, as I have some practical suggestions that may assist the process. May I modestly suggest that he read the short memorandum that I sent to the Committee, which is in the appendix? To some extent, it meets his point.
	I want to refer to another item in the appendix—the memorandum from the Chairman of Ways and Means. He is in a unique position because he can sense how things are operating. As Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel, he receives feedback from the Committees, he regularly takes the Chair in this place and, of course, he has long experience as a Member. I quote in full one of the statements in his memorandum:
	"In summary I suggested that the more comprehensive introduction of programming had not led to bills being scrutinised more thoroughly or completely than hitherto; that programming was capable of being used constructively; that, short of any more fundamental approach, detailed programming should not be left in the hands of the usual channels; and that in effect all that had been achieved thus far was legislation in a hurry."
	That is a formidable critique from a uniquely informed and objective standpoint. All members of the Committee, whatever their party, took seriously that important set of views. The Chairman of Ways and Means spelled out—as he has done on previous occasions—several practical suggestions for the Committee.
	The more fundamental approach to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his memorandum would obviously involve some form of independent legislative business committee, answerable to the whole House. That will not be easy to achieve—there is so much history to deal with in this place—but we should not ignore the fact that most deliberative assemblies that are similar to ours, including the Holyrood Parliament, which serves the Scottish people, are much more open and transparent, enabling all Members of all parties to make their contribution.
	This afternoon, we should give notice that the report is not the end of the story. The Whips—the usual channels—are, in effect, on probation; unless they can help us to improve the situation the reform will have to be much more radical than is currently being suggested. The report and the debate are putting down a marker that if the system does not improve and we do not achieve better results all round for everybody, especially in the quality of the legislation that we pass, the Whips' present decisive role in organising the legislative business of the House will have to be modified.
	The Chairman of Ways and Means has repeatedly emphasised, in his evidence to the Committee and on previous occasions, that all parties have responsibility for finding ways to make that process work better, for the benefit of our constituents, for the better delivery of a better-quality product and for the reputation of Parliament. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is right. The general public do not merely feel that we are rather irrelevant; people who come up against the detail of legislation—whether in business, trade unions or whatever—often see only too clearly the inadequacy of the consideration that we give in this place. Whether the legislation is on dangerous dogs or the Child Support Agency, the inadequacy of our work in this place is, all too often, only too apparent to the people who are directly affected by it.
	A steamrolling Executive may occasionally be faced by an Opposition that is wholly obsessed with oppositionitis, but the two feed off each other; they are not completely independent. They create equal and opposite alternatives.
	Taking a lead from the comments of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I want to make some constructive suggestions. In that context, I have served on a Standing Committee in this Parliament and have frequently done so in the past, but I am not sure how recently the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has served on a Committee considering a Bill. Has he been involved in a Bill that has been the subject of a programme carefully decided by the Programming Sub-Committee? That brings me back to my memorandum, in which I pointed out that it is critical that the Members who are to do the job of scrutinising Bills should take a primary role in deciding how the job should be done. It is absurd that we used to hold three-hour debates in the Chamber on how to split up the time for a Bill. The Members who contributed to such debates were, almost invariably, not going to be members of the Committee. They set the terms of reference but they were not going to do the job.
	Surely a basic and sensible approach is to try to ensure that the people who are most concerned should be the ones who decide about the job. Similarly, at present, the Whips discuss how to carve up the programme before the Committee is even appointed. As my unanimously agreed amendment to the report suggests, the operative moment for deciding when such discussions should start is when the Committee is appointed, when the names come before the House for notification—rather than approval, in normal circumstances. That is the moment and those are the people who should be involved in the discussions, not least because that is the moment when Back Benchers can exert some influence. Up to then, only the Front Benchers will know which are the important issues. I find it extraordinary that anyone should hanker after those three-hour debates during which, by their very nature, the non-participants in the detailed work used to make all the running.
	Similarly, it is critical that, when debating a Bill on Report in the Chamber, those hon. Members who have served on the Committee should have the first right to discuss, decide and influence the total amount of time used and how it should be used. No doubt, those hon. Members will be influenced by other hon. Members who may feel that the Committee has ignored an issue, but at least those who have served on the Committee will be fully acquainted with the important issues and which issues were not properly discussed.
	The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and I also agree that, when the Chairman of a Standing Committee, who is independent and above the partisan views of the members of the Committee, feels that whole chunks of the Bill—perhaps new clauses, new schedules and completely new issues—have not been discussed properly, the very basic requirement of the House should be that we have a report on Report. We tried to promote that suggestion in the Modernisation Committee. It is an absurd anomaly that Report includes no report whatsoever from the Committee.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: How would the hon. Gentleman deal with the situation where the Government themselves table 300 or 400 amendments that totally change not only the context, but frequently the content of a Bill?

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for asking that—it was almost a planted question—because I addressed the issue in a suggestion that I made to the Modernisation Committee. In those circumstances, the responsibility lies with the Chairman, who is independent, to tell that Standing Committee that such work cannot be undertaken in the current framework. If the Programming Sub-Committee could not agree on a change to the programme motion and it were patently impossible to allow appropriate time, even with additional sittings, it would be the responsibility of that Chairman to return to the House to seek an amendment of the out date. I do not see any other way—any other safety valve—for a Committee to try to do the job properly if it is constrained in such a way.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that would put enormous and unacceptable pressure on those on the Chairmen's Panel, who are there to carry out the correct conduct of the proceedings on Bills, not to take a strong political position? That would put not only enormous pressure on them, but demand that the Speaker's role changed because their logical line of information would be the Speaker, who would then be required to take what, in effect, would be a clearly political position.

Paul Tyler: I understand the hon. Lady's concern, but some members of the Chairmen's Panel who have addressed this issue feel that, if they had the support of their Committee in thinking that its job was impossible, they could undertake precisely that role in reporting back to the House. If the Committee were simply divided on party lines and Government Back Benchers simply went along with their party line, well, more fool they, because they would be falling into precisely the trap that the hon. Lady referred to a few minutes ago.

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman knows that I share his view that we should try to make Report involve a proper report back from the Committee. Does he think that that would be helpful because those hon. Members who are interested in the Bill but did not serve on the Committee would benefit from such a report? An element of the report—this relates to what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said—would cover what Government amendments were introduced and what weight they had. Is it not the case that, with Bills such as the Criminal Justice Bill, very important amendments are made in Committee of which other hon. Members are not fully aware?

Paul Tyler: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. More transparency is needed. For example, a report about the fact that issues arose late in Committee, were not debated and went though virtually on the nod would be extremely helpful. I am grateful to him for his support on that issue.

David Kidney: On the daring suggestion that Report should actually involve a report, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that I have suggested in this and the previous Parliament that, just as we have explanatory notes for Bills on Second Reading, such a report should be available in the Vote Office on Report?

Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I should have paid tribute to him for the fact that he has promoted that idea. I put it to the Deputy Leader of the House that, on a tripartite basis, we feel that there is an absurdity and that the House should address the anomaly.
	Two other points come out in the evidence put to the Modernisation Committee, and we have not yet been able to find the right way to develop them and incorporate them in our process. First, it surely must be important that the process that decides how best to slice up Committee time cannot logically begin until those Members who will serve on that Committee are agreed upon—I mentioned that just now—but then there must be proper time before the Committee sits. It is written into the report that we think that the Government should allow at least two weekends between the agreement on the Floor of the House about who will serve on a Committee before that Committee sits. That time is the minimum to allow not just those hon. Members who will serve on the Committee but other hon. Members who may be interested to feed into the process of determining how best to divide up the time. There must be greater flexibility to cope with unforeseen issues such as the extra material that comes forward.
	Secondly, the final decisions on the allocation of time on Report surely cannot logically take account of the discussions in Committee, let alone tabled amendments, until we know what they will be. There is a current case: the Water Bill will be considered in the House on Monday. Substantial amendments may well be tabled today—or, indeed, at least in theory, on Monday—that could be selected for debate. How can it be decided days previously how to divide up the proceedings on Report, especially when time is relatively limited, without full knowledge of the issues to be raised? We have to pace that process more intelligently than we have done.
	I regret that we will have to let the existing Sessional Orders stand—I assume that we will do so—because the report is, frankly, a non-progress report. A great deal of work remains to be done. I hope that the Leader of the House and, indeed, other hon. Members will give a firm undertaking that this is not the last word on the issue. I regret that, for reasons not unconnected with the changes in the Modernisation Committee's chairmanship this year, we have not made as much progress on the issue as I should have liked, but let me re-emphasise that we were unable to make better progress in the end because there was a degree of complacent lethargy in the usual channels.
	All too often, the main Opposition Whips Office has taken the view that, "Oh, one day we may be over there again, so we don't want to improve the situation, open up, make things more transparent, let Back Benchers in and have a legislative business committee." I regret that very much. My hon. Friend the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip was here just now, but perhaps it is just as well if I say in his absence that we do not want to be dragged into the sort of lethargy that, I am afraid, the usual channels have undertaken all too often in the pursuit of the old Buggins's turn approach: "We'll get there one day, and in the meantime, it's too bad."

Richard Shepherd: After that demolition of the existing process, I wish to ask about the proposals for improvement—the motion—because it involves the continuance of the existing Sessional Orders. I have not heard how one reconciles support for the continuance of the Sessional Orders with the burden of the argument that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Perhaps he could crisply tell us.

Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman has heard me often in Committee; I shall be as brief as I can. I want to change the Sessional Orders, but it is clear that we have to try to develop a cross-party consensus. Just to throw out the Sessional Orders this afternoon would not be a constructive way forward, but I hope that he will give me his support in the Modernisation Committee so that we do not let this bone of contention lie. I hope that he will persuade his colleagues, too, that oppositionitis—rejecting any attempt to improve the situation—is equally foolish, negative and does nothing for Parliament's reputation. There is work to be done, and somehow or other we have to persuade those in the Whips Offices of the other two main parties that this issue will not go away.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is illogical to say, "I disagree with all of this. We've looked at it more than once. It is not working. However, I am going to let it go because other people want it." We are here to express a view and to say if we do not want something. Many of us are used to being in minorities that turn into majorities. If the hon. Gentleman is serious, he should vote against the Sessional Orders.

Paul Tyler: I hope the hon. Lady has read the memorandum—

Gwyneth Dunwoody: With care.

Paul Tyler: I am grateful for that. The memorandum does not suggest reverting back to what was an unsatisfactory situation. I do not accept the implication of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that everything will be wonderful when we go back to the old system. The situation was eloquently described by the Chairman of Ways and Means, whose suggestions have been blocked. I tactfully warn the Whips that that blockage cannot be allowed to continue for ever. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has much more experience than I have of what happens in the Government Whips Office, but I think that one day the House will revolt against the hegemony of the Whips Office.
	We have had fewer deferred Divisions recently, which I welcome. They should not happen every evening. To some extent, they have become a non-issue. It is important to recall that they were accepted on the basis that they were to be on stand-alone subsidiary issues. We should not be in the invidious position of having to make a major decision on a deferred vote.
	I do not know where the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst got the idea that the problem had never arisen before. As a conscientious Member of the House, he is in the Chamber to hear every word that is discussed before he votes, but I have to break it to him—perhaps he has not observed this before—that some hon. Members will not have heard our words of wisdom if we vote today. Quite a few Members come to the House to vote without a completely clear idea of the issues at stake. That is an awful confession and perhaps I should not say it, but as we all know that the best way to keep a secret is to talk about it in the Chamber on a Thursday afternoon, I think that I will escape without encountering the wrath of the gods.
	We often vote on an amendment that has either not been debated or been debated the day before. Detaching the debate and the Division is not a dreadful, radical, revolutionary idea. If every time we voted, every Member of Parliament had to put his or her hand on a truthometer or, for those of us who believe, the Bible and say, "I've heard every word of the discussion", there would not be many people in the Division Lobby. The idea that we are breaking a great parliamentary and constitutional convention by detaching a debate from a Division is, frankly, baloney. I hope we can put that to bed.

Phil Woolas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one advantage of a deferred Division is that if a Member has not been present for a debate, there is an opportunity for him or her to be made aware of it before casting the vote?

Paul Tyler: That may be true. What I have also noticed, which is interesting, is that Members on both sides of the House—no doubt this applies to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst as well—sometimes take the advice of others on how to vote when they go through the Division Lobby with their pink bit of paper on a Wednesday afternoon. He is a man of great independence, so I recognise that he will weigh up the advantages of the advice that he is given, perhaps from the usual channels, as he goes through the Division Lobby. Let us not fool ourselves, however. The House could not operate if every time we divided every hon. Member had to weigh up every issue debated in the preceding discussion, as much as I may wish that that were the case.

Richard Shepherd: rose—

Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman does his best to be here for every debate but, as I am about to finish, I will not give way again.
	Deferred Divisions are not the ideal way to operate, but they are a reasonable way of dealing with a small problem. It is significant that we do not have to vote in that way often. The Modernisation Committee still has a great deal of work to do. I look forward with interest to hearing what other hon. Members think should be our top priority.

Mark Fisher: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). As is so often the case when we discuss parliamentary matters and the way in which we discuss our business, I find myself broadly and strongly in agreement with almost everything he says. I shall cover in detail some of the points he made.
	I hope that the House listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said. She put the debate in the right context. What is Parliament all about? What are we doing here? How well do we hold the Executive to account? We are sent here both to support our parties and also, as parliamentarians, to scrutinise the Executive. The proposals, in that they affect the procedures of the House, go to the heart of those issues. The truth, as I think hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise, is that we scrutinise the Government very poorly indeed at the moment, and it is getting worse.
	When the former leader of the Conservative party, Sir Edward Heath, gave his final speech to the House—he sat where the hon. Member for North Cornwall is sitting now—he said that in his parliamentary lifetime power had shifted inexorably from Parliament to the Executive, and that if we had any sense we would scrutinise ourselves, resist that move and correct the position. If anything, things have got worse since then, as any fair-minded parliamentarian on either side of the House would recognise. If we cannot see the dangers in that and the warnings to us, we will blindly bear witness to the complete decline of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. It is as serious as that. That is why we have to get the procedures right.
	Unlike the shadow Leader of the House, I think that, in principle, there is a lot of good sense in the programming of business, but in practice it is not working, and the ways in which it is not working are serious. Unless Parliament asserts itself and corrects the position along the lines discussed today, we will become a place that simply rubber-stamps the Executive, and that will be to the detriment of everyone.
	I am in favour of programming in principle. There is nothing exceptional about trying to have an orderly procedure for our business. The first Standing Committee that I sat on was in 1983 on the Telecommunications Bill, which privatised the telecommunications sector. We prided ourselves in opposing it rigorously. I sat beside, and at the feet of, Mr. John Golding, the former Member of Parliament for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who took me through the procedures. He said, "Our job, my boy, is to oppose." Indeed, he drove me back to north Staffordshire every Thursday night and explained what we had done well and what we had done badly. His idea of opposition was to make life as uncomfortable for the Minister, Mr. Kenneth Baker, now the noble Lord Baker, as we possibly could. His view of how that could be achieved was by prolonging procedures. Colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, will remember his famous 11-hour speech when we considered that Bill.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: John Golding was a remarkable man. I do not want my hon. Friend to be unfair to him. He went on for more than 11 hours, but because he knew everything there was to know about telecommunications not only did he not repeat himself, but the Chairman did not have to call him to order because, almost unusually, he knew what he was talking about.

Mark Fisher: I concede to my hon. Friend that nobody knew more about the telecommunications industry and its practices than Mr. John Golding. However, I should explain that he kept in order only by the skin of his teeth. He explained to me what he described as the Swiss roll way of scrutinising amendments in Committee. His method was to roll out an argument against an amendment. Having reached the end of the argument, his practice was to say, "It is just possible that I am mistaken." He would then roll out the entire argument again from a negative point of view, thus scrutinising his own opposition to the amendment.
	Everything that Mr. John Golding said was well informed. Perhaps he was much better informed than the rest of the membership of the Committee put together because of his great experience. It is a slightly romantic idea that everything that he said was completely constructive or in order.
	I suspect that we were wrong to oppose that Bill in the way that we did. It certainly made consideration of it nonsensical in Committee. It was not really proper scrutiny, not least because when eventually we so irritated the Government that they imposed a guillotine, swathes of the Bill—I think that we reached only clause 30 of an 80-clause Bill—that affected people working in the telecommunications industry enormously were never debated.
	From that moment on, I recognised that, exciting and macho though it was to fight the Government in such a way, it was wholly non-productive and did not serve good scrutiny. Ever since, I have recognised that there is much to be said for good programming. However, that is a big proviso. There must be intelligent programming.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is setting out the grounds of the judgment of opposition parties as to how they treat consideration of a Bill. In consequence of the decisions of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues the then Government introduced a guillotine, which was a matter that had to be debated on the Floor of the House. We are talking about who has ownership of a Bill in Committee, and that has historically been the Committee itself.

Mark Fisher: I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's last statement. A Bill should be the property of a Standing Committee while it is in Committee. However, I dispute his earlier point. The assumption behind it is that time is the only weapon of any interest, and it was not an effective weapon against the then Government.

Richard Shepherd: The assumption was not that time was the only weapon. It was the judgment of those who were then in Opposition as to how they should conduct themselves.

Mark Fisher: I accept the distinction.

Richard Shepherd: It is an important one.

Mark Fisher: Indeed. I concede that. However, it was the convention that Standing Committees saw time as their only way of putting pressure on the Government, and it was not effective pressure when it came to scrutiny. It was pointless pressure. I do not think that either party can point to a substantive concession being made in Committee or on the Floor of the House because of the pressure of time.

Eric Forth: One of the points of harassment, nuisance and guerrilla warfare is that occasionally it might elicit information from a Government or even a concession. More important, in the overall sense of the parliamentary Session and the way it works, such an approach may force a Government to prioritise their business in the relationship between this place and the House of Lords. The weapon of time is not necessarily as futile as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It may seem sterile in Committee when considered in isolation, but in the overall context of parliamentary procedure it can have relevance.

Mark Fisher: I concede that strategically time has a significance. However, specifically, in the scrutiny of a Bill, it is irrelevant and possibly even counterproductive. There is a distinction between strategy and detail.

David Kidney: Would my hon. Friend agree that these recent exchanges overlook an important body of membership of the House? I refer to Back-Bench Members who support the Government of the day. Under the old system they were under great pressure to shut up and do nothing. I can remember a Whip telling me to fill in my Christmas cards rather than even follow the debate. Under programming, Back-Bench Members get an equal share of the time if they want to participate in debate. I would argue that the quality of debates in Committee has increased greatly.

Mark Fisher: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right and that there can be a proper and even-handed debate in Committee, though that reduces the time available to the Opposition. However, I accept that it improves scrutiny. Important and valuable contributions can be made by Government Back Benchers on behalf of constituents or as a result of previous knowledge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said. My hon. Friend makes a good and fair point. That is another reason why I think that in principle programming is a good idea, if it can be made to work.
	The House is enormously in debt to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for the 20-pages worth of detail in the report, showing that the constriction of time has changed considerably. His comments have not been read into the record. Perhaps I should wait for the hon. Gentleman's speech and not anticipate it.
	By my estimate, between 1881 and 1975 debate was curtailed on Bills on 80 occasions. During 1997—the Government's first year—consideration of Bills was curtailed on only three occasions. Since 1998, time has been curtailed and circumscribed on 93 occasions. Something is going badly wrong. As has been said, it is happening not as a last resort, as it was when the guillotine was imposed up until 1997, about 120 years, but as a first resort. It is happening even before we can see the shape and flow of debate or argument on a Bill. The hon. Member for North Cornwall was absolutely right in saying that until the Bill goes into Committee we cannot hear fully what representations outside bodies will make. I am referring to those that will have to put the proposed legislation into effect in their industries, in the public sector or wherever. Until we can hear the Government defending their Bill and deploying their arguments, we cannot test whether it is good or bad legislation. The idea that all the amendments are clear before we go into Committee is a fiction.
	In a decent Committee, the process of scrutiny provokes intelligent legislation, intelligent scrutiny and intelligent amendments, possibly from the Government as much as from the Opposition. In recent years the Government, to their credit, have recognised that, as a matter of routine, proposed legislation is nowadays so poorly drafted that their own legislation sometimes needs dozens or even hundreds of Government amendments. That happens in Committee. The idea that as we go into Committee we can have any idea how long consideration should last, or will naturally last, is a fantasy. It is only in Committee that we begin to see the picture.
	I move on to possible ways of remedying the situation. The House is in the debt of the Chairman and Ways and Means and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for the shape of a more constructive system. We need a more hybrid system, and essentially that is what the Chairman of Ways and Means and the hon. Member for North Cornwall appear to me, as I read their contributions in the report, to be advocating.
	We should have programming that gives an out-date. That is sensible. It concentrates everyone's mind if it is known that there are so many hours or so many sittings in which to divide the debate. That ensures that the important parts of the Bill, which depending on the drafting sometimes appear at the beginning of the Bill or at the end of it, can be covered. It is irresponsible of the House to allow legislation to pass from this place to the other place if important areas of a Bill have not been scrutinised. We should be ashamed of ourselves if that ever happens. Having an out-date would concentrate people's minds and ensure full scrutiny takes place. We would know roughly when scrutiny would be complete but, in addition to an out-date, there should be procedures within the programme for that date to be reassessed. I assume that that is what the hon. Member for North Cornwall is proposing—during discussion of the Bill there ought to be an opportunity for both Government and Opposition to review the proposed out-date. The setting of an out-date and a review in Committee should be transparent, public and published, so that everybody can see what is going on and what the arguments of the Government and the Opposition are. It is not acceptable for a date to be smuggled out via the usual channels and produced as a fait accompli. We must have a transparent system with some elasticity and flexibility to allow for injury time when things go wrong.
	If the Government think that they will be run ragged by that arrangement in practice, they have the right that Governments have had for the past 100 years—no one has ever objected to it—and can introduce a guillotine if it is clear that the Opposition are playing games and obstructing proceedings. Old guillotine motions had to brought to the Floor of the House, justified and explained. The Government had to have a good case, or at least one for the Leader of the House to make. Most Members, with exceptions such as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), would have confidence in a hybrid system that is flexible, transparent, open and is not smuggled away. Such a system would address the question of whether we legislate well, provide enough time, achieve fair scrutiny and are ceasing to rubber-stamp Government legislation. If we can answer those questions we will begin to move towards a way of conducting our business that is more intelligent and more credible to the public.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is the shop steward of Parliament First, an organisation that draws support from Members on both sides of the House, is seeking to improve the terms of trade between Parliament and the Executive and has sponsored a number of exciting publications and ideas. I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
	In the spirit of our debate, I want to subject my speech to a tight programme motion and make a short contribution on two general matters. First, however, I should like to pick up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the circularity of the matters under discussion. The front page of the report shows that the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee is the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). Paragraph 29 makes recommendations about late amendments, and states:
	"The Government should support such proposals."
	The recommendations are aimed at the Government, particularly its business managers, and the chief business manager is the Leader of the House, who is also the Chairman of the Committee. We need to repatriate the Modernisation Committee, and perhaps change its name to the "Strengthening of Parliament Committee". The House would then be in charge of setting the agenda, rather than ceding it to the Leader of the House, who is increasingly becoming like the character in "The Mikado" who wore a number of different hats and spent a large chunk of the opera talking to himself in his various roles.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for his amendment, and we look forward to his speech, as he has been a doughty defender of the rights of the House in this area. Two factors influence the shape of our proceedings in the House. One is defined and tangible and consists of Standing Orders, rules and Sessional Orders. The other is less defined and consists of the relationships between the usual channels, personalities and the mood of the House. If the second factor is all right, the rules are less important. If it is wrong, the rules become very important. In the last Parliament, relationships became difficult. In my view, a few of my colleagues were too diligent in subjecting the business of the House to detailed scrutiny, and deals were no longer possible. The Government used their majority unilaterally to change the rules and, in my view, overreacted slightly. The rules that we are debating today were therefore introduced, but they are not satisfactory. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that they are obstructing the House in its efforts to deal with its business better.
	The mood of the House has changed and is different from what it was at the beginning of the last Parliament. We now have an opportunity to do what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and others have suggested—look at the advice of the Chairman of Ways and Means at Ev 2 in the report, which states:
	"A programme for a standing committee should prescribe an out-date only. It is the experience of Chairmen that the use of internal knives is frequently unhelpful."
	I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that in the next Session we should try with a number of Bills to go back to a system that can work perfectly well with good will. We should leave to the good sense of the Committee, the usual channels and the Front-Bench spokesmen the decision on how to use the available time, thus avoiding the inflexibility of a programme motion. If we try that and it does not work, fine. However, there is an appetite for making that alternative approach work, and it would be an improvement on current arrangements.
	At the heart of the problem, as has been said, is the size of the Government's legislative programme. Peers are on their last legs, and are up all night dealing with the remaining stages of a number of Bills, many of which left the Commons with a large number of clauses unconsidered. The evidence is in the Modernisation Committee report. I served on two Standing Committees in this Session—one considered the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 and the other the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. In both cases, we did not debate key clauses. We were not fooling around wasting time—we genuinely did not have time to address some of the key issues. No wonder that the other place is having to focus on such provisions. The position on Government amendments has got worse, rather than better in recent years.

Peter Hain: May I make an observation about the other place? If the right hon. Gentleman makes a detailed comparison of the extent of scrutiny of Bills in the other place and our own experience in the Commons, he will find that the Lords are not scrutinising Bills as effectively as us. In addition, the House of Lords does not have a proper procedure for timetabling business, which is one reason why it is getting into a mess and effectively defying the will of the Commons.

George Young: I would draw a different conclusion from the Leader of the House. If the Lords are to avoid the problems that we have been discussing this afternoon, it is important that the Government do not have the facility to introduce guillotines and programme motions in the upper House, as there would then be a risk of legislation going through both Houses with inadequate consideration.
	The root of the problem that we are discussing this afternoon is the fact that we are trying get a quart into a pint pot. Until the Government exercise self-discipline on the volume of Bills that are introduced, we shall continue to have arguments about the way in which we programme legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was generous about paragraph 11 of the report, in which the Committee outlined four basic criteria that a reformed legislative system should be able to meet. Three of the four criteria have not been met. The Opposition do not have a full opportunity to discuss and seek to change provisions to which they attach importance; all parts of a Bill are not properly considered; and Bills are not prepared properly in many cases and require a mass of new Government amendments. By the Committee's own criteria, the present regime is missing three of the four targets.
	I have nothing against draft Bills, but I am slightly worried about paragraph 15, which looks at such Bills. Of the 10 draft Bills introduced in this Session, six were considered by departmental Select Committees whose members, in a sense, are the best folk to do that job. However, there is a risk of their agenda being captured by a hyperactive Government Department, and the Committee's other work being squeezed out. I can therefore see some advantage in establishing more Joint Committees so that the other place can help to deal with the legislative burden.
	Finally, there is a risk that deferred Divisions will bring the House into disrepute and encourage cynicism outside about how we conduct our business. I think that there is something almost cynical about voting on a proposal five or six days after it has been debated. The hon. Member for North Cornwall sought to justify such an arrangement by saying that, in debating Bills, there were circumstances in which we voted on an amendment on the day after it had been debated. However, that occurs because of where an amendment falls in considering a Bill and I do not think it is a true parallel with what the Government are now doing. I shall certainly vote against the recommendations on deferred Divisions.
	Like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, I have nothing against programming in principle, as it can represent a good opportunity to make better use of time, but we are certainly not there yet. I shall need persuading before I accept that the current Sessional Orders are the same ones that we should live with in the next Session. I urge the Modernisation Committee to revisit the matter and to see whether it can propose a better remedy for the problems that we have addressed this afternoon.

Richard Shepherd: The only matter on the Order Paper that there has been no attempt to amend is whether we should continue with the existing Sessional Orders. I am a member of the Select Committee on Modernisation, which has now deliberated on that question twice. On both occasions, a majority has concluded that the arrangement is not working quite as we would like. We must ask why. I have had enough of this.
	We have a history in this House, and rules and regulations called Standing Orders. We can compare the past with the present and look at the one question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked: are our Orders working? My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said that the arrangement does not even meet three of the four objectives set by the Select Committee. It certainly does not do so.
	The purpose of my minority report—I shall speak to it, if I may—was not to be contentious, but to try to give a history and the background to what we have been through. I regret that tables A and B, which form a crucial document for anyone who wants to examine how programme orders or guillotines have operated in this Session, do not follow my one question: have the Sessional Orders achieved their objective? I sought to list appendices A and B in that part of the report so that the text flowed and so that we could ask ourselves what the effects had been on the basis of a direct comparison. The truth is that, when the information is set out and seen on the page, there is no evidence to support the contention that we are discussing Bills any better than we have in the past. What we have put in the hands of the Government, however, is the means systematically to guillotine every Bill that comes before this place.
	One member of the Committee, whom I shall not name, said that they had never read "Erskine May", which records the traditions of this House, how Standing Orders have been used and the practice that has been followed. "Erskine May" refers to guillotine motions. The 1997 edition notes that such motions
	"may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business, and the rights of debate."
	I maintain that our report—the majority report—does not even address that central proposition of "Erskine May", which reflects the practice, custom and purpose of this House.
	The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the distinguished Chairman of one of our Select Committees, had it in mind that the focus of why we are here—the assemblage of Clerks and the majesty of Parliament—is not about us, but about those whom we represent. Having given the Government this enormous power of majoritarianism in Sessional Orders, there is no weighing process whereby we can criticise them for giving only three minutes to debate the slaughter of a first-born Bill and for insisting on their out-date. Not one Member can say "Hang on, I think that the slaughter of the first-born might require half an hour."
	We have so accepted a process that seeps through our understanding of who we are and what we are about. Outside bodies, including the Hansard Society, for which I have great respect, and Clerks have toiled over the years, saying, "Surely, as reasonable people, we can construct a system whereby we can weigh elements of debate, and allow freedom of expression and the rights of opposition." Yet in looking at the history of this place, we see that its origin was to give opposition ownership in Committees, as they were taken from the Floor of the House and put off the premises, so to speak. That was about doing our job for ourselves and it gave opposition the ownership of saying, in one sense, "This is the proposition of us, the majority; we believe this is right—challenge us."
	That is familiar to every Briton. We do it in our courts: I make a case, and the defence makes its case. That is essential to our concept of equity and justice. This high court, as it once was, followed that tradition, but, as the figures given by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) showed, it broke with it almost a century and a third ago. The Irish question had brought the Government to despair: three months, no less, were spent on one measure. The effect of the new arrangements were recognised at that time—indeed, some of the comments that were made have been cited. At the will of the majority, a great constitutional measure could, if necessary, be swept through in an afternoon. People were mindful of the fact that that was a very important departure, and that its effect was significant for the well-being of the nation.
	When we discuss guillotines in the modern age, it is one of the ironies of life that, as we become less educated, in a sense, about who we are, where we come from and who we represent, we find it tedious that oppositions and minorities should be allowed to rattle on. The truth is that Governments have had the power, and have maintained it over the years, to say "We have had enough of this." However, that power should be used only at the end of the process once it has been ascertained that what is happening is deliberate obstructionism rather than considered argument about whether a Bill is appropriate for the country.
	I totted up slightly different figures from those of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—my hon. Friend—and I put them in the report. Between 1946 and 18 February 1997, 67 Bills were guillotined. It was an accelerating process. I criticised Mrs. Thatcher's Government, whom I supported, for guillotining as many as 43 Bills. I thought that that was terrible. At the time, I was happy to note that so many distinguished figures in the present Government agreed; they, too, thought it was terrible. Between 1946 and 1997, 67 Bills were guillotined: under new Labour's six years, 94 Bills have been guillotined.
	The truth is that, historically, most Bills were not opposed. I have sat through debates as the House has supported tranches of such legislation. Committees have undertaken detailed scrutiny quite satisfactorily. This has become a major issue because guillotines represent an instrument of the Government's control over this House. That is why the Government want the Sessional Orders to continue.
	I have many beliefs that I want to represent on behalf of my constituents. I profoundly believe that the new constitution for Europe destroys the very essence of democracy in this country. I want that to be fully debated, but if the Orders are passed there is nothing to stop the Government saying that two days in Committee of the whole House is sufficient—and I cannot even debate whether that is so. Yet when we are denied a referendum, the Prime Minister advances the argument that our custom and usage is for Parliament to consider all such issues and that the will of Parliament will prevail. That is why this is a major constitutional issue. We want to find a way in which rational and decent people can properly discuss legislation, but the Leader of the House, who sits on the Select Committee that makes these proposals, has delivered into the hands of the Government the means by which they render us ineffective.
	Other hon. Members touched on the consequences. Power has moved from here to the House of Lords, which is drowning in the examination of legislation that we are not considering. I urge hon. Members, the public, the Hansard Society—anyone who trusts in Parliament or is interested in the fundamentals of our democracy—to look at the detail on the guillotines in tables A and B. When I speak to people outside who question what we are, or are not, doing has no idea that if I want to speak on, say, the fluoridation of water, I am subject to a two-hour guillotine that will not even remotely allow me to express a human rights interest in the autonomy of the individual. They do not understand that the new Labour Government have constructed Sessional Orders that throttle and belittle our purpose.
	We talk about connecting with the outside world, but we are not connecting with anyone. Parliament would revive if we were allowed to carry out the task that we were elected to perform—to come here to give assent or acquiescence to the measures proposed by the Government or to reject them if we think them inappropriate. The massive armies of parties locked in debates between themselves have lost the wider purpose of our business. These Sessional Orders should be rejected: we should revert to the practice that has been successful in the past.

Barbara Follett: I welcome the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly, in the debate. Before I do so, I apologise to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for having come into the Chamber halfway through his passionate speech. I am afraid that I was a victim of programming—the programming of planes from Germany, where last night I attended an awards ceremony: not for me, I hasten to say, but for my husband. I got here as quickly as I could.
	As a member of the Modernisation Committee, I am extremely pleased to support the reinstatement of the Sessional Orders and broadly to support the contents of our report. The report is not, as some hon. Members assert, blindly in favour of programming—in fact, it criticises it and says that we need to revisit it constantly. It says that the programming that we have at the moment is imperfect and that we must continue to work on it as a Parliament—not as parties—to make it better.
	I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), because I believe that we have to consider where knives fall in Committees. It is not sensible to set knives—or even, sometimes, an out-date—before the Committee has first met and has looked at what it has to discuss in terms of contentious areas and areas where more time might be needed. We should be able to do that together, as adults, and to arrive at a decent compromise that allows proper scrutiny and debate.
	The report says that the purpose of programming is to enhance legitimate debate and scrutiny. Frankly, when I first came into this House in 1997, a great deal of our debate was not legitimate. Had I been present for John Golding's 11-hour speech on telecommunications, riveting and encyclopaedic though it may have been, I am afraid that I would not have felt it to be a legitimate use of the House's time; and, as a taxpayer, I would have been extremely irritated that the only way in which the Opposition—which was my party in those days—could think of opposing the Bill was by delaying it.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views about another place, but, for her information, two Labour Members once managed completely to derail an inadequate plan for its reorganisation by using the tactics of delay, not only against that legislation, but against every piece of legislation, until the Government of the day abandoned it. They were Lord Joel Barnett, who had been a Treasury Minister, and my most honoured friend, the right hon. Robert Sheldon. It would be difficult to make remarks such as those that she just made if one was not here and did not understand how such procedures worked.

Barbara Follett: I bow to my hon. Friend's greater knowledge of what happened in this place before I entered it, but I was referring to a specific example. What those noble Friends did was useful and good, but I am talking about using 11 hours of delaying tactics. When I came here in 1997, we did not have programming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, it was not introduced until 1998, and that was out of necessity. I have served on the Standing Committees on two Bills—the National Minimum Wage Bill, which had no programming, and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which had programming, but is specifically mentioned in the report as being an example of bad programming that did not allow enough time.

Mark Fisher: My hon. Friend says that we were forced into considering programming. Presumably, therefore, she is suggesting that during our first Session in 1997 we were completely stymied by mindless opposition, but there is no evidence for that. Indeed, the details that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) appended to the report show that we needed to use the guillotine only four times during that Session, which is about the average for the previous 10 years.

Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I did not say that we were being paralysed. Let me underline again what I was saying about legitimate debate. The National Minimum Wage Bill Committee once sat for 36 hours. The Deputy Prime Minister and I listened to the Opposition discuss almost anything except the minimum wage. That was the longest sitting of any Standing Committee.

Eric Forth: It sounds to me as if what the hon. Lady is complaining about is the fact that she was inconvenienced. We come back to this time and again: whatever the pros and cons may be of delay or irritation—I am in favour of that being used against any Government, and I experienced it when I was in government and did not complain about it at the time—I am irked that Labour Members seem to be obsessed with having an easy, slick, organised, convenient life, rather than occasionally accepting inconvenience. Is that what the hon. Lady is saying?

Barbara Follett: That is precisely what I am not saying. I came into politics to make things better. I do not care how inconvenienced I am or how long I spend in this House if what we are doing is legitimate and useful. On the National Minimum Wage Bill Committee it was not legitimate or useful. It was wasting time. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that time wasting is the only way in which we can oppose. It is not.

Eric Forth: It is one way.

Barbara Follett: It is one way, but it is a fairly useless way. The best way is by persuasion.

John Hayes: The point, surely, is that what is legitimate in the hon. Lady's terms should not be solely in the purview of the governing party. Legitimacy is not for the Government to dictate or define; that is for the House and individual Members. Surely she would acknowledge that.

Barbara Follett: Nor is that just for individual Members to define. Individual Members and the Opposition held members of the National Minimum Wage Bill Committee prisoner. [Interruption.] I am not complaining about it. I am saying that it was a waste of time and that we should not be in Parliament wasting our time and taxpayers' time.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barbara Follett: No, I should like to make some progress.
	The purpose of programming is to enhance debate and scrutiny, so I am glad to support it. We need to revisit exactly how we impose programming on lengthier Bills. This report outlines that and gives a steer towards it. We have to stop harking back to the old days. They were not all that good, nor all that bad. I hope that I will not hark back to my time in the House in quite the same way as some have done today. I am 60 years old and a pensioner. I am not young or particularly keen on modernisation. I am too old for it. However, I am particularly keen on this House being effective and respected. A reason why we are losing respect is not, as some hon. Members say, because we are not working long hours. We all work impossibly long hours either here or in our constituencies. It is because we talk rubbish a lot of the time and we have to admit that.

David Wilshire: The hon. Lady should know.

Barbara Follett: The hon. Gentleman knows more than I do about talking rubbish. I have heard him do so in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill Committee. We must stop it if we are to be respected and taken seriously again.

Richard Shepherd: My only observation, other than congratulating the hon. Lady on being 60, a year which I also celebrate—important as it is to the debate—is that the old days are just seven years ago. They are not some mythical past. I should be grateful if she, too, would explain why she supports these measures when they are clearly not working.

Barbara Follett: I believe that the measures are working—not well, but they are working. We have a duty to make them work better. What we are doing in Parliament is to prevent them from working at all. We resist programming and say that if we go back everything will be all right. We have to look at what we have. It is there because it is necessary to stop us talking rubbish.
	We must also stop drawing a comparison between guillotining and programming. Guillotining is cutting off debate, whereas programming is getting together to decide where and when we debate. We need to make sure that we understand that programming is something that we do together. It is the responsibility in particular of Ministers and the usual channels to make sure that it works.

David Cameron: In relation to the Criminal Justice Bill, where 106 clauses were not even debated, will the hon. Lady explain the difference between a programme that allows that and a guillotine that causes it?

Barbara Follett: The Committee had a chance to do something about that, but, as far as I know, it did not so. I was not on that Committee, but I know that there were a massive number of clauses.
	We are not taking responsibility for what we are doing. The report tries to get us to do that. I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I respect his minority report. I pledge to work with him to make programming work better. We must understand that guillotining is suppressing debate and programming is trying to work out together how to give the Opposition enough time to discuss contentious areas and not just filibuster contentious areas. I support the report.

David Cameron: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett). She did not tell us whether her husband won the award in Berlin, but I am sure we are all keen Ken Follett readers and hope that he picked up a globe or whatever last night.
	We have had an excellent, albeit short debate. Perhaps in contrast to some contributors I should stress my inexperience. Nevertheless, I can say that I made my maiden speech during a debate on programming. I expressed my scepticism then and I have had little reason to change my view since.
	Several hon. Members talked about the Modernisation Committee report. Perhaps it is wrong for me to express a view, having joined the Committee so recently, but I have great sympathy with what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said. I do not think that the Committee works properly. It is neither a Committee of the House, independent of the Government, nor something else. It is half way between. It is ably chaired by the Leader of the House, but it would be better if the Committee looked at the processes and procedures—[Interruption.] I would not call it the Modernisation Committee; it should be renamed. It would be better if parliamentary colleagues had a proper look at these issues without the Government being so involved, so I agree with my right hon. Friend that it does not work.
	Summing up the debate for my party, I oppose the Sessional Orders for three good reasons. First, the routine programming of Bills is wrong. Hon. Members have expressed differing views. Some favour having an out-date for all Bills, but only that; some, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose minority report is very good, would go much further. It is interesting that we heard only one contribution from someone—the hon. Member for Stevenage—who believes that the system is working and that there should be routine programming of Bills.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made an extremely strong speech, and I want to quote the opening line of his minority report, which says it all:
	"The working of the House is dependent on a degree of tolerance and forbearance by the majority towards Opposition and minority opinion."
	The routine programming of Bills, which we now have, does not allow for that degree of tolerance and forbearance. My hon. Friend quoted some powerful figures. The report says that
	"in the 57 years from 1946 to 1997 only 67 bills were guillotined",
	but that in the past six years there have in effect been 94 guillotines.
	Therefore, my first reason for opposing the Sessional Orders is that routine programming should not be necessary. The Government should look at the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), among others, and try to give some Bills just an out-date and not a detailed programme motion.
	My second reason for opposing the Sessional Orders is that by any stretch of the imagination the current system is simply not working, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and many others said. The figures in the memo at the back of the Public Bill Office report are staggering. There are 27 Bills in the current Session, and knives have come into play 53 times. Two hundred and sixty-four groups of amendments have not been reached because of knives. Last night I added up all the clauses and schedules not reached, and it comes to a staggering 519. Many of those are not discussed at all, not even on Report. The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons asked what the figures were previously, but he must listen to Members in his own party who, after careful consideration, are saying that the system really is not working.
	In an intervention on the hon. Member for Stevenage I mentioned the Criminal Justice Bill, on whose Standing Committee I sat. There was no filibustering in that Committee. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) also served on it and I am sure that he would back me up if he were here. On that Bill, 71 groups of amendments were not reached and 106 clauses and schedules were not discussed at all. Just to give one example, that Bill made the big change in criminal procedure of moving the charging of suspects from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service. It was not debated at all in Committee. It was not reached and therefore went under the knife. If our constituents knew how badly we were doing the vital work of scrutiny, they would rightly be even more concerned.

Barbara Follett: The hon. Gentleman said that I thought that the system was working well, although I may be misquoting him. I think that it needs a great deal of improvement, and he has just given an example of where that is needed. That is why I am glad that he is on the Modernisation Committee. Perhaps we can work on that.

David Cameron: That brings us to some of the points that I have made during my brief time on the Committee. We need to look at those issues. We need some change.
	The third reason why the Sessional Orders should not remain as they are is contained in the very powerful evidence that we heard from the Chairman of Ways and Means, which has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and by the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. That is powerful evidence from someone who really understands how previous systems worked or did not work, and how the current system is not working. We should take that extremely seriously. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), too, referred in a powerful speech to the contribution of the Chairman of Ways and Means and said that we were going down the wrong track. Why are the Government so scared of having further debate in this place? That is a third reason why the system needs radical surgery.
	Any newcomer to this place cannot help but be struck by these simple facts: we pass too much legislation, we do it too quickly and we do not give it enough scrutiny. Many Members have expressed those views this afternoon. The situation is already bad and the evidence seems to suggest that it is getting worse. The Modernisation Committee minority report, drafted by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, gave some figures for the pages of legislation passing through this place. In 1997–98 there were 1,900; by 1999–2000 that had risen to 2,537. I have figures from the Library, showing that the situation is getting worse still. One could argue that the introduction of programming has made the Government's life simply too easy because it encourages sloppy legislation. The number of Bills has not risen markedly—there were 39 in 1997–98 and 40 in 2001–02—but programming encourages sloppy legislation because the Government know that they can programme legislation and ram it through the House.
	In the remainder of my time I shall point out what I think is wrong with the system and say where we need to make progress. The hon. Member for North Cornwall took a similar approach. Here comes the shopping list. First, it should not be necessary to programme all Bills. There should be flexibility. Why not have an out-date where possible and, if the Government believe it to be necessary, programming where needed? They should consider that, rather than just having routine programming to drive everything through.
	Secondly, as a number of hon. Members have said—for instance, the hon. Members for Stevenage and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—programme motions are dealt with at virtually the same time as Second Reading. There should be time for a Committee to consider points made on Second Reading, and to decide whether to oppose the Bill and which matters need to be discussed in most detail. No account is taken of the number of amendments that may be tabled, not just by the Opposition but by the Government.
	Thirdly, nowadays most programme motions are not debated. Surely they should be debated, especially when they relate to big Bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills gave a good example: will the programme motion on the legislation relating to the European constitution be taken straight through the House, with no proper discussion of how much time should be spent debating that legislation? I would prefer us not to have these wretched programme motions at all, but in that instance it would certainly be wrong for us not to be able to discuss the amount of time to be spent on debate.
	Fourthly, the use of knives in Committee is far too inflexible. I know that the Programming Sub-Committee can change the arrangement, but that happens far too rarely. In the case of the Criminal Justice Bill, important measures fell under the knife. The Modernisation Committee report gives a brilliant example relating to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. All credit should be given to the Leader of the House for allowing us to include it, for it is pretty shocking. The report says:
	"The effects of the short timetable were exacerbated to some degree by lengthy speeches . . . In the end, 58 groups of amendments and 73 clauses and schedules were lost to the knife. Clauses which were taken forthwith under the knife included all but four of the 11 clauses in Part 1".
	The Leader of the House said that it was good for lobby groups to know when certain parts of a Bill would be debated, but it is just as true that it is dreadful for the lobby groups when the part of a Bill that they care about falls under the knife and is not discussed.
	Several hon. Members have mentioned the provision for debating amendments tabled at a late stage. That is mentioned in the report. Will the Leader of the House give us some guarantees regarding the allowing of more time for debate? The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central used a good phrase: he said that there should be transparent public and published discussions on that.
	The hon. Members for Stafford and for North Cornwall and I would all like a proper Report stage. Members who do not serve on a Standing Committee may be interested in the Bill none the less, and may want to know what has happened to it. They may have spoken and listened to speeches on Second Reading; once the Bill has disappeared into a Standing Committee, they may find it difficult to follow the Committee stage in detail, given all the work we must do here. What is needed is a proper report, perhaps from the Chairman of the Committee, listing amendments that were not debated, clauses that were not reached, schedules that were not discussed and Government amendments that were introduced, and specifying the amount of time spent debating those amendments. That would give hon. Members a sense of the shape of the Bill, how it had changed in Committee, and what work Parliament should still be doing to ensure that we do our job properly.
	Third Reading has not been discussed today, but I want to place it on the record that Report stages much too often last only one day, with Third Reading following immediately. Members with an interest in the Bill who were not involved in the Committee stage might want to consider what happened on Report before deciding what to say on Third Reading. Third Readings are becoming a dignified rather than an efficient part of the constitution, which I think is wrong.
	Another issue not mentioned today was the subject of a powerful point made to the Modernisation Committee by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I refer to Back-Bench amendments. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who has done a huge amount of work on the subject of historical allegations of abuse in children's homes, came up with some serious amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. A lot of thought had gone into them, but because of the way in which the knives operated on Report, they fell. Obviously, there is little transparency in what is selected and what is not.
	The Chairman of Ways and Means makes an excellent suggestion, which is to set up some form of legislative business Committee, to which Back-Bench Members could appeal and explain why their amendments should be selected and debated. I hope that that idea will be considered. Back-Bench amendments are all too often lost, particularly under our present harsh programming regime.
	There are some good suggestions in the Modernisation Committee report. Programming Sub-Committees should meet as a matter of routine if the Government table a lot of amendments; I hope that that will happen. I also hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will give us a guarantee about the paragraph that says that more time should be guaranteed between the introduction of a Bill and its Second Reading, and also between the choosing of a Standing Committee and the start of its work.
	Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I remain of the view that a great deal more needs to be done. The test should not be whether we are getting home early, or whether the passage of legislation is predictable; it should be whether we are doing our job properly—and as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and others have said so clearly, we are not doing it right at the moment.
	We have three things to do in the House. The first is to stand up for our constituents and the second is to hold the Government to account. Those two we do quite well. The third, however, is the business of passing legislation, and in my experience over the past two years, that is something we do very badly. I do not believe that the Sessional Orders will address that problem at all, so I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote them down when we get the chance, and start with a clean sheet of paper.

Phil Woolas: The whole House will agree that this has been an interesting and useful debate, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members, led by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), for their contributions. Let me repeat the remarks of the Leader of the House and say that it would be a great shame if this were to be the right hon. Gentleman's last speech as shadow Leader of the House. He is an asset to the House, even if on some occasions—indeed, on many occasions—he is somewhat on his own.
	I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has not been reaching for his bleeper this afternoon; indeed, I am not even sure whether he has taken to wearing such a modern device—but if he has one, clearly it has not gone off. I congratulate him. He might wish to point out to the House that his deputy, who also made a good and well-informed speech today, was special adviser to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), so I am sure that he will be watching his progress very closely.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has a duty to the House and to the process of scrutinising the Executive's proposals, but he also, rightly, has a duty to the Government and to their right to achieve their legislative programme. After all, that is what the Government were elected to carry out. I think that most Members believe that the balance between those two pressures is about right. As many people have said in the debate, it could improve, but—contrary to what the shadow Leader of the House said—it is legitimate for the Government to expect that their legislative programme will be reasonably scrutinised and, at the end of the day, they should have the opportunity—

Paul Tyler: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas: Let me develop my point before hon. Members start to intervene.
	Programming did not originate with this Government; it originated from Committees of the House, particularly in 1985 and 1992, with Conservative majorities. Programming was not, as the Opposition have attempted to suggest today, motivated by the needs of a heavy-handed Government making irresponsible use of a large majority. It was originally motivated by a desire among Back Benchers on both sides of the House—and, indeed, among Front Benchers—for sensible timetabling of Bills.

Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the Procedure Committee's 1985 recommendation. The then Conservative Leader of the House, John Biffen, said that the recommendation favoured Governments, and on a free vote, a Conservative majority joined a Labour minority and voted it down.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but my point is that the motivation for programming has not come about through the desire of the Executive. He is more experienced in, and aware of, the route map of programming, but I should point out that programming evolved; it was not invented by the new Government in 1997. I wanted to make that point because it is an extremely important one.
	Sensible timetabling of discussions—I emphasise the word "sensible"—especially when they are controversial, is a good thing for all concerned. It allows Front Benchers on both sides of the House to plan their speeches and interventions, and to plan with outside bodies, as is legitimate. It allows Back Benchers, who have many competing demands on their time, to know in advance with some accuracy when the issues of concern to them and their constituents will be debated. In my opinion, it is wrong to say that timetabling has had a detrimental effect on scrutiny, and the facts back that up. The House should look to the quality, as well as to the quantity, of scrutiny. On both counts, sensible timetabling has improved matters.
	I concede—as the report concedes and my right hon. Friend conceded in his opening remarks—that in certain cases, programming has proved detrimental, and it is the business of this report and of this debate to try to improve it. It works well only if there is co-operation. That is part of its purpose: it gives Standing Committees and the usual channels the responsibility to work together to timetable debates in a sensible way.
	In answer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), it is not programming that makes bad legislation; it is irresponsible filibustering that takes away from Members not involved in that filibuster the opportunity to debate the clauses and schedules that they consider important. If a commitment to co-operation were made—there have been many examples of co-operation in the current Session—programming would work for all of us.
	Indeed, in researching for this debate, I found dozens of examples of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen congratulating the Government usual channels on the well-ordered manner of the debates. I was going to read all of them out, but some of the Members in question are present and I do not want to embarrass them today. However, I shall offer some examples. In the Standing Committee that considered the Licensing Bill, the following was said:
	"We have no criticism of the end date and we are happy to work with it".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 April 2003; c. 4.]
	It was said of the programme motion for the Criminal Justice Bill that
	"it would be utterly churlish not to thank the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). When he was Government Whip in charge of the Bill in Committee, he showed enormous flexibility."—[Official Report, 2 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 926.]
	In the Standing Committee on the Extradition Bill, the Opposition spokesman said that
	"there was no contention at the short Programming Sub-Committee . . . The matter was left to be reconsidered at a future meeting".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 January 2003; c. 4.]
	There are many examples of programming benefiting the sensible work of the Committee.
	Today's debate has been divided between those with an outright opposition, in principle, to the idea of programming, and those on the other side—I admit that they come from a wide spectrum—who accept the principle of programming but want to improve its operation. The Leader of the House and I include ourselves in the latter category: we are committed to making this work. In that context, it is wrong to portray programming as a measure adopted by a heavy-handed Government; it is a genuine attempt to provide sensible, modern timetabling of debates.
	I want to consider the alternatives to programming that were described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett). The idea that there was a golden age is simply wrong.

Andrew MacKinlay: I do not want to go too deeply into this issue, but I want to consider those rare occasions when a Bill is considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. Two Bills relating to Northern Ireland were so considered in this Session. Both provided for a great deal of subordinate legislation, so they were not simple Bills. On the first occasion, there was no Committee stage. By the time we had dealt with the programme motion and had Second Reading, the whole thing went through like a tablet of stone. I make this plea: can we avoid that in future, because it is an abuse of Parliament?
	Secondly, what are the modalities of deciding what time should be made available in those circumstances, bearing in mind that minority parties as well as the official Opposition and some anoraks like myself are interested in these matters? How are we to deal with the occasions when there is a need for expedition, but not abuse?

Phil Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He provided some good examples of where sensible flexibility is required. In the first instance, programming was, I concede, undesirable. It is also the case that the House is learning how to use programming in a constructive way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, like all parliamentary procedures, it is a matter of evolution. However, if Opposition Members set their faces against it and deny it the opportunity to work, scrutiny—together with the reputation of the House—will suffer.

Paul Tyler: rose—

Phil Woolas: I shall give way just one more time, but then I must finish my speech.

Paul Tyler: As a former member of the Whips Office—I, too, have been a Whip—I would like to ask how the Minister reacts to an extremely important recommendation from the Chairman of Ways and Means, which is recorded in the report. He said that
	"detailed programming should not be left in the hands of the usual channels".
	What is the Minister's response?

Phil Woolas: My first response is to say what existed before programming. We have heard examples from pre-1992 Sessions and I understand that I was criticised earlier by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—I was not present, but I bow to the hon. Gentleman's greater knowledge. What happened in the earlier period was that the usual channels ipso facto agreed the programming and timetabling of Bills. Secondly, if knives are imposed by a majority on a Committee that is unwilling and there is no consensus for that action, the likely outcome—experience on the planning Bill bears this out—is that it will not work well. It will not result in better scrutiny. However, I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who agrees in principle with timetabling, that if we are committed to making it work and we learn from our experience—the Hunting Bill is one of many examples—we can move forward together. I must now make progress with my speech.
	The Modernisation Committee report is helpful in setting out how we can improve programming for our benefit in the House. It is very strong in its support for the principle, but I believe that the core recommendation is in paragraph 10 on page 5, which points out that the principle is fine, but improvements need to be made. That is the basis on which we bring the motion before the House today.
	I invite the House, especially hon. Members opposed to today's motion, to consider the consequences of not having programming. We had some examples of that earlier today. As the report says, there was never a "golden age" of full scrutiny of all clauses of all Bills. On the contrary, there was deep and widespread dissatisfaction with the haphazard nature of scrutiny. That frustration was the motivation that led to the introduction of programming.
	In any event, the programming and timetabling of Bills is only one part of the jigsaw of modernisation. I know that the word "modernisation" sends the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst into apoplexy—[Interruption.]—so let me use a different turn of phrase. Making House of Commons procedures relevant to the British public is, I believe, the same as modernisation. Opposition Members are kidding themselves if they believe that the antiquated methods of discussion—through-the-night debates, speeches that nobody listened to—will make the average voter in our constituencies respect this place more. People do not come up to me on the streets of Oldham and say, "Phil, that was a great intervention at 2.30 in the morning on the National Minimum Wage Bill". They are more likely to say, "What on earth are you lot doing down there, behaving like that?". Programming and modernisation represent a serious attempt to reconnect Parliament with the people whom we represent, and the programming motion should be seen in that context.
	The Government have improved scrutiny. In this Session, nine Bills have received pre-legislative scrutiny. Does the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst commit himself to adopting pre-legislative scrutiny, in the unhappy event that his party were to take power, or would he prefer, as I suspect is the case, to do away with pre-legislative scrutiny because he thinks it is a modern innovation that has no place in our procedures? It would be interesting to hear his reply in future debates.
	The Government introduced Westminster Hall, allowing Back Benchers more opportunities for Adjournment debates. From my experience of trying to make programming work in my previous designation in the Whips Office, I can tell Opposition Members that if they think the usual channels are happy with all the new procedures, they misunderstand the position. Those procedures create a greater workload for Ministers. The number of times that Government or Opposition Back Benchers have forced Ministers to come to the House has increased dramatically since the introduction of Westminster Hall. It is a shame that hon. Members do not take it as seriously as they should.
	What frustrates the House on all sides is not the sensible timetabling of Bills, but the attitude of those on the Opposition Front Bench who agree, often in private, with a sensible timetable for debate, and who often agree with the measure before the House or the Committee, and then detain the House late at night with pointless votes against programming out of some misguided sense of opposition. If they oppose the measure, that is what they should vote against. They should not delay the House by debating how it should be debated. It is such Opposition antics, not the sensible timetabling of Bills, that bring the House into disrepute.
	The shadow Leader of the House gave the game away in his infamous "back of the taxi" memo. He may be coming to the end of his time as shadow Leader of the House, although I genuinely hope not. Let me remind the House what he said at the beginning of his time as shadow Leader of the House, when he wrote the infamous memo to his Chief Whip:
	"We should be more discriminating in targeting Bills . . . to ensure that the controversial Bills cannot be completed".
	If one sets out with the objective of opposing a Bill come what may, of course one will oppose in principle the sensible timetabling of Bills, but is it not better to adopt the philosophy of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, who has pointed out in the House and elsewhere that strong and sensible argument is the strongest weapon of opposition, not filibustering and delay, which in my opinion bring us all into disrepute?
	The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who unfortunately could not be present for the debate, has asked:
	"Are we just going to get consumed with a rather claustrophobic atmosphere—the in-bred atmosphere of Westminster—and to believe that we are achieving things just by staying up late at night making speeches that nobody ever listens to?"
	That is the alternative to timetabling. [Interruption.] I hear it rather unkindly suggested that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells may know about that, but his point is nevertheless valid.
	Do we want to go back to legislating without timetabling, when the House was brought into disrepute by schoolboy antics? I respect, as does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the fact that the Opposition have a duty to oppose. That is the nature of our parliamentary democracy, but it is facile to waste the time of hon. Members. How many hours have been spent not on opposing or scrutinising Government proposals, but on arguing about when hon. Members are to argue about when they are to argue about them? We saw that yesterday, in a wholly false debate about the Water Bill, when we could have spent the time discussing other important matters. Hon. Gentlemen criticise my right hon. Friend for not allocating sufficient time, but it is now two hours before the moment of interruption, and where are the hon. Members who oppose the heavy-handed Government with their large majority? I suggest that some are Upstairs celebrating, and some are Downstairs commiserating. Those are not good opposition tactics; they serve to discredit the House.
	My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he wishes to consider measures to help to make programming work and the hon. Member for Witney made some sensible suggestions. He made a valid point about late amendments. Sensible timetabling is contradicted by the introduction of many late amendments, whether by the Government or the Opposition. The report makes that point and says that the situation should be improved, but many of the Bills that we debate do not have knives, even under the programming regime. Although the hon. Gentleman made some sensible points, I reject the central thrust of his argument, which was opposition in principle to the idea of programming.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage made some strong points, but she also said that she was critical of the current operation of timetabling and wanted to improve it. Many other hon. Members agreed. However, I agree with my hon. Friend's central point. I, too, was on the Committee that considered the national minimum wage. It sat for 36 hours, not to improve scrutiny but for filibuster after filibuster.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich made her opposition clear and I respect that, given her vast experience of debates in the House. However, I disagree with her strongly on one point. She said that parliamentary procedures evolved out of a concern that they were relevant to the people. I do not believe that that was the case. Parliamentary procedures evolved from the practices of the gentlemen's clubs of the Mall and the courtrooms and restaurants of west London. The reason we started at 2.30 in the afternoon was not to make us relevant to the textile workers of Oldham or the railway workers of Crewe; it was to fit in with a timetable that is wholly alien to a modern democracy. While I respect my hon. Friend's views, I reject that argument.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) agreed in principle with the report—I thank him for that—but pointed out several dangers and problems that might arise. He reminded the House, wisely and with great pertinence, especially for newer Members such as myself, of the dangers of not having programming. I respect him for that argument.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) pointed to some improvements that could be made. I disagree with his point about the House of Lords. I shall not delay the House further with long lists of how—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Well, perhaps I will then. The facts from this Session show that, on average, the House of Commons spends longer on Second Reading than the House of Lords. On average, the House of Commons spends longer in Committee than the House of Lords. On average, time spent on Report is broadly comparable between the two Houses. I concede that it is slightly longer in the House of Lords, but that is because of the way in which the House of Lords takes amendments on Report. On average, the House of Commons spends more time considering Lords' amendments than the House of Lords spends covering Commons' amendments. Line-by-line scrutiny does not exist and never has existed. It is a myth that programming in this House is forcing the other place into spending more time on scrutiny. We know what is happening: it is political opposition. I respect it for that, but let us be honest about it.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, with the great experience that he brings to this matter, said that he has nothing in principle against the motions. I share his view that all those who favour programming want to see it improved.
	The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, in a strong and passionate speech, said that he did not accept the principle of programming. We must respect him for that, but I hope that I can reassure him by saying that programming is not a heavy-handed, irresponsible use of our majority, but an attempt to improve matters for Back Benchers and Front Benchers on both sides of the House, and—most importantly—to make the House of Commons relevant to, and understood by, the people of this country.

Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 87.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That Orders A to I relating to the Programming of Bills, made by the House on 28th June 2001, and programme orders of the current session of Parliament relating to bills which are carried over to the next session, shall continue to have effect in the next session of Parliament.
	Motion made, and Question put,
	That the Order relating to Deferred Divisions, made by the House on 28th June 2001, shall continue to have effect in the next session Parliament.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
	The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 80.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the Order relating to Deferred Divisions, made by the House on 28th June 2001, shall continue to have effect in the next session Parliament.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Immigration (Leave to Remain)

Ordered,
	That the Immigration (Leave to Remain) (Fees) Regulations 2003, (S.I., 2003, No. 1711) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

BOMBARDIER RAIL MANUFACTURING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Bob Laxton: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House a matter of vital importance to my constituents and to others in adjoining constituencies in Derbyshire.
	Derby has been at the centre of train manufacturing for 163 years. It is a long and proud tradition. Its economic growth has been due in part to its location in the middle of England and to the strategic importance that that gave it in a country that was building trains as it raced into the age of industrialisation.
	According to Brian Radford, a local historian and writer in Derby, from 1839 to the 1960s, most trains had to go through Derby to go from the south to the north-east or Scotland. That served only to convince me as I grew up in Derby that Derby truly was the centre of the universe.
	Since the 1960s, when the manufacture of locomotives moved to Crewe, and later, when privatisation saw the growth of intense international competition, Derby has seen a slow decline in its railway fortunes. Following the closure of Alstom's site in Washwood Heath in Birmingham, Bombardier in Derby is now the only train manufacturing company left in the UK.
	In July, the Strategic Rail Authority gave the TransPennine franchise to FGK, a consortium consisting of First Group, a British company, and Kelios, a French company. For eight years from 2004, FGK will run trains from Hull, Leeds, Durham and Sheffield to Manchester, Liverpool and Lancaster. Siemens and Bombardier came forward when FGK announced that it was accepting bids to supply the new franchise with 56 new diesel-electric trains. Siemens won the bid, which was a severe blow to Bombardier and train manufacturing in the UK. The bid was worth £200 million—more if a maintenance and logistical contract is included for the full 30-year life of the trains. Although Bombardier won an order worth £3.4 billion from London Underground in April, it will not start working on that 15-year contract until 2008, leaving a gap of about three years in its order book, from the end of 2004 to 2008.
	To put that in perspective, when Alstom closed its Birmingham site in the summer, it had an order-book gap of six months. What chance does Bombardier stand with an order-book gap of 36 months? It has already said that it intends to review its European operations, and a gap in its order book could put Derby at the top of the list of sites for closure. It employs 1,800 people at its Litchurch lane plant in Derby. Moreover, it sources 80 per cent. of its manpower and materials in the UK, payment for which amounts to £450 million. A sum of £30 million is spent on its wage bill, while £50 million goes to suppliers within a 30-mile radius of Derby. Ten thousand people in the supply chain could be affected by closure of the site.
	By contrast, the winning Siemens bid will result in the shell for British trains being created in the Czech Republic and the fittings being manufactured in Germany. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions has not yet visited Bombardier, but if she speaks to our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who visited Derby in September, she would learn about the depth of feeling, both in Derby and well beyond, about a possible closure. I thank my local newspaper, the Derby Evening Telegraph, for the excellent and energetic campaign that it ran over the summer against the possible job losses at Bombardier.
	That campaign was supported by more than 3,000 individuals, including people across the UK, in Argyll, Cumbria, Newcastle, and all over the world, in Australia, Vancouver in Canada, Michigan in the USA and, closer to home, Brittany in France. This is not just another loss of manufacturing jobs and Bombardier is not just another company manufacturing an obsolete product in an obsolete fashion. It is a high-quality company with highly skilled workers who are manufacturing something that I am certain the Government do not view as an obsolete mode of transport.

Laura Moffatt: I am grateful for an opportunity to contribute to this important debate. My hon. Friend knows that I went to Derby as a member of the Industry and Parliament Trust, and that we visited the Bombardier operation with the Go-Ahead Group to look at the way in which trains are manufactured. I was shocked at the excellence and cleanliness of Bombardier's fantastic operation and the way in which it attracted women into a heavy-engineering business. The loss of such an operation will be felt not just in his constituency but much further afield.

Bob Laxton: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. No one could fail to be impressed by Bombardier's operation in the city of Derby. I well remember visiting the old loco and carriage-side works as a young person, and left feeling that I needed a scrub down, given all the oil, swarf and so on. Bombardier is a high-tech company—one feels that one could almost eat one's food off the floor. Manufacturing processes have been completely revolutionised over the years.
	I have already mentioned that UK suppliers would be badly hit if Bombardier ceased manufacturing at the Litchurch lane site in Derby. A number of those suppliers are based in Derby. AVE Rail is based at the Bombardier site itself, and rents its building from the company, which seems logical as it sends 50 per cent. of its production to the Bombardier factory next door. AVE employs 160 people, and its work with Bombardier brings in £8 million a year.
	Time 24 is a company that won the Derbyshire business of the year award in 2000. It manufactures the heating, lighting and air conditioning parts of Bombardier's trains. It employs just under 200 people, and 75 per cent. of its output goes to Bombardier. The impact of Bombardier's closure would ruin small and medium-sized companies, such as AVE Rail and Time 24, around the UK.
	The Government have sought to tackle the chronic lack of investment in the railways dating back to the 1970s. The haphazard manner in which the railways were privatised did not help. However, many engineering companies that traditionally worked hand in hand with British Rail, and later with the privatised franchises, have survived well.
	After the devastating decision by FGK to grant the order to Siemens, I received a letter from a Mr. A. J. Hough, the managing director of Engments, a Derby-based engineering company. He said that his company had "toughed out" the period after privatisation, when
	"virtually no orders were placed, secure in the knowledge that the industry was in the position where new trains were desperately needed, and that new orders would be placed once the industry settled down after privatisation and establishment of the new Rail Franchises".
	He went on to say that although
	"the period of inactivity was extremely painful, we felt reasonably assured of a long term future".
	The loss of up to 1,800 jobs at Bombardier is bad enough, but we could also be talking about up to 12,000 additional jobs in the supply chain if we consider the domino effect of the additional closure at Bombardier.
	What is even more scandalous is that FGK has won the TransPennine franchise for only seven years. Beyond that, there is no guarantee that it will run the service. However, the Government, using British taxpayers' money, will have to underwrite—that is, guarantee—the purchase of rolling stock. A Department for Transport spokesperson, commenting on the decision by FGK to grant the contract to Siemens, said that the decision was "wholly" that of FGK. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, said in a letter that it is not the Strategic Rail Authority's business
	"to influence bidders over the choice of suppliers or sub-contractors".
	That position has also been taken publicly by the head of the SRA, Richard Bowker.
	If the long-term risk of the venture lies with the Government, should not they have a say in the decision on the bid? Why should the British taxpayer subsidise jobs at a Siemens plant in Germany, for example? That has already begun to happen. Soon after receiving a contract for work with London Underground, Alstom pulled out of the UK. If Bombardier closes its Derby site, all future orders for UK trains and underground trains will be manufactured by companies outside the UK.
	Following the Bible of free-market economics and the law of comparative advantage only goes so far in improving the living standards of the British people. What is the true financial cost of Bombardier leaving? It is more than the value of the contract that we are losing and the consequent effects on the balance of payments. How many people will have to depend on benefits after leaving Bombardier? We all know from the Thatcher years that the social cost of unemployment is devastating, and we are still dealing with the effects of long-term unemployment 24 years after Mrs. Thatcher was elected. We need to take a hard look at how we go about allocating our railway franchises, and, subsequently, at how the companies that receive those franchises operate.

Mark Todd: Has my hon. Friend looked at how rail operators on the continent choose to manage their procurements? He may have seen examples of much tighter regulation that ensures that much of the work in replacement vehicles goes to local manufacturers.

Bob Laxton: I thank my hon. Friend. I shall come to that issue, which has been a particular interest of mine, later in my speech. For sure, some of the comments are anecdotal, but they give a good flavour of the differences between our procurement procedures and those of some other European countries.
	It is fair to say that we play by the rules that the European Union has set, but do all countries do the same? Let me give an example. The Derby Evening Telegraph sent one of its reporters out to Crespin in France, where Bombardier has a site. A Monsieur Louadoudi, who worked on the site, expressed horror that the UK Government could let trains that were to be used in England be built in another country and expressed fears that something similar to what happened to Bombardier could happen in Crespin. That seems unlikely, however, because France, Germany, Italy and Austria all stipulate that at least 60 per cent. of their trains must be made within their national borders. That explains why Bombardier has sites not only in France, but in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Sweden. None of the Governments of those countries would consider buying their trains from a company that intended to use foreign suppliers.
	My local newspaper, the Derby Evening Telegraph, quoted me as saying that the UK plays cricket while our competitors play karate. Admittedly, that was an unfortunate slur on a Japanese art form that has rules as stringent, if not as strange, as those of cricket. What I am saying, though, is that other European Governments do not hesitate to muscle in if they see the need to protect their core infrastructure and industries. I am not advocating that the Government subsidise Bombardier—Bombardier has made it clear that it does not expect a subsidy—and I am certainly not advocating that the Government do as the French have, and buy a share in a company such as Alstom simply to sustain financially its manufacturing in France. I am advocating that the Government take a more active approach in ensuring that the UK maintains an industrial base.
	Train operating companies in the UK do not have to think twice if the train that they have commissioned to be used by a UK passenger is manufactured in Derby or in, say, Bruges. Someone who works in the railway industry told me that when train companies made bids in countries such as France and Germany, the Governments of those countries repeatedly stressed to them that they should use local suppliers. I hope that the Government will seriously consider doing the same.
	Train manufacturing is not simply a part of Derby's past—it is part of the UK's future. There is little point in investing additional money into raising the standards of vocational engineering courses and encouraging more students to take up this shortage occupation at degree level if we insist on exporting their jobs to other European countries.
	It is well recognised that labour laws in the UK are more flexible than those of our continental European cousins. If the Government do not seek to tie the hands of international companies with inflexible labour laws, we should, for the sake of future generations, tie their hands in a different way. An international company that is granted a franchise should be made to carry out at least 50 per cent. or, better, 60 per cent. of its production within the UK. In its time, FGK has given two contracts to UK-based firms and two to overseas firms. As a Bombardier spokesperson said,
	"It is now obvious that firms do not have to be based in the UK to win UK orders".
	From Bombardier's point of view, there are a number of actions that it could take to save the Derby plant. It could delay the order placed by Govia, part of the south-east franchise, to reduce the gap in its order book—but it would be penalised contractually for doing so, and that would hit it hard financially. It could seek to bring forward its order to start the production of new London Underground trains that is due to start in 2008, but that would mean that completed trains would sit around idle without Bombardier receiving payment for them. Again, that would financially penalise the company; and the question would arise of what work Bombardier would have from 2008 to replace the London Underground slot.
	Bombardier could look to its European network to transfer any excess work from a European site to Derby. That was done in the past at its Wakefield site, which had such a tight deadline for meeting an order from Virgin Cross Country that work was moved to Bombardier in Belgium and France. Colin Walton, Bombardier's vice-president of sales, mentioned that possibility. However, in view of a more recent briefing by the company, I understand that it is a remote possibility as there are other Bombardier sites in Europe with gaps in their order books.

Patrick McLoughlin: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this issue which, as he rightly said, is causing great concern in his constituency and throughout the southern part of the county. Does he agree that as the days go by, uncertainty about when decisions will be taken is causing increasing concern? Members on both sides would like to ask the Minister to say to the company that it should let people know what is going on. The hon. Gentleman made several points that would answer some of the problems that are perceived as a serious threat. I agree with him that we must put pressure on the company to come to a conclusion and show those who have worked loyally for it that there is a bright future.

Bob Laxton: I thank the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). I understand that it is soon to become Derbyshire Dales, and not before time. I agree with him entirely. The situation is not being helped by the fact that the chief operating officer of Bombardier is constantly being quoted about overcapacity in Europe and is actively looking at the closure of sites in Germany and the United Kingdom. All that adds to uncertainty about what will happen, whether the gap will be plugged and whether the work force will have jobs. To be absolutely fair to the work force, from talking to trade unions it seems that they perhaps take the view, "We have been here before and survived." They seem reasonably buoyant, but as time goes by they are bound to get stressed out from all the doubt and indecision.
	Can the Minister give us an indication of what help the Government can give Bombardier? Will they help it look for work from Scotland, Ireland and other parts of the world? Bombardier is a world-class company with a world-class work force in Derby. I hope that the Government recognise that and will offer some help, perhaps in the form of export guarantees to assist Bombardier win work from abroad or bringing forward orders to replace the high-speed 125 train.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, uncertainty is the real difficulty. It is problematic for the work force. Close to 14,000 jobs are at stake. After 163 years of train manufacturing in Derby, is it going to disappear and will there no longer be a train manufacturing or assembly site anywhere in the United Kingdom? Will all future orders for British Rail and the underground network have to be sourced and built outside the United Kingdom? Surely not.

Jacqui Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on securing this debate, doing a good job representing Bombardier and its work force in this House and working hard to convince us that Derby is the centre of the world. As I am outnumbered in the Chamber, I will concentrate on Bombardier as opposed to the first part of his speech.
	I am aware of reports in the media suggesting that Bombardier is looking at closures in Germany and the United Kingdom. I can assure the House that my officials are in regular contact with Bombardier's senior management team in the United Kingdom. Recently, I met my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who has visited Bombardier. I have not yet had the opportunity to visit it, but I have been fortunate to visit manufacturing companies in Derby, which I consider to be important. In discussions with my hon. Friend, I was able to discuss the situation at Bombardier and wider issues concerning rolling stock procurement—issues that we both take extremely seriously.
	The most recent announcement from Bombardier was made on 7 October, and while I fully understand local concerns about the future of the Derby plant—the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) made a very fair point in that regard—it might be useful to recap on what the company has actually said, against a background of the general over-capacity in the rolling stock sector in Europe. Paul Tellier, Bombardier's Canadian chief executive, said that the company needed to cut its overheads in Europe to remain competitive. It has started an audit of its sites, and consolidation to remove excess capacity is expected quite soon, possibly starting in the new year. He has mentioned plants in Germany and the UK. However, until that review is completed, there will be no further comment from the company.
	I fully appreciate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North has said, this will be a cause for some anxiety in Derby, but there has been no suggestion at this stage that the Derby plant will be closed. It would therefore be premature to talk about major job losses in the rail supply chain. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, however, that the UK needs high-tech, high-value, high-skill manufacturers such as Bombardier. I very much hope that Bombardier and companies like it will form the backbone of the future of manufacturing industry in this country, not least for some of the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North pushes us on the position with regard to train manufacture, and I hope that I can reassure him that the Government want train manufacturing in the UK to have a strong future. I would certainly not wish to see the end of train-making in this country, and, as my hon. Friend has ably pointed out, continued production at the Derby site is hugely important to the locality, the industry and the supply chain. Furthermore, the company is a major inward investor in the UK, with more than 5,000 people employed in its rail business. When it acquired the Adtranz train building operation in 2001, it quickly resolved inherited problems and made an excellent job of turning round the company. It is making a significant contribution to improved efficiency and standards in the UK rail network.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of the TransPennine express order, and I understand that it will have come as a disappointment to Bombardier, and to the work force and unions, that it did not win the order for those trains. There is strong competition for all rolling stock orders, particularly in the light of the over-capacity in Europe at the moment. Procurement decisions are for the train operators, not for Ministers, but I know that the loss of that order has understandably led to a great deal of concern in the Derby area. That is why, at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport has reviewed the award of that contract. He was satisfied that fair and open competition had been conducted, and that the decision on manufacture would deliver the desired value for money required by the Strategic Rail Authority. In spite of the setback, Bombardier has an excellent track record and a highly skilled work force, and I look forward to it winning further orders.
	The Derby plant is currently embarking on an 18-month period of unprecedented production volumes. It is taking on staff to cope with the increased output needed to deliver a large order of new Electrostar trains next year to replace slam-door trains in London and the south-east. I know that Bombardier has also won contracts for Nottingham trams and large orders for London Underground, to be delivered from 2008 onwards. This is a tribute to Bombardier's management and its work force. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, however, the Derby site has a gap in its order book between 2005 and 2007, and we need to put that into context.
	The company is currently doing well. Nevertheless, I fully understand local concerns. I am aware of Bombardier's importance to the Derby area. It is a major employer providing valuable skilled jobs, including, as my hon. Friend said, jobs in the rail supply chain. I also know that Bombardier's management is actively trying to plug the gap, and is investigating the scope for rescheduling existing orders. The company is a major player, highly successful and well managed, and more than capable of winning further contracts.
	My hon. Friend mentioned support for exports, and I shall say something about that shortly. He also raised the issue of rescheduling. Although, as he said, considerable difficulties are involved, I am sure that sensible proposals from the company would be considered, although I make no commitments.
	It has been suggested, although not, I think, by my hon. Friend today, that the problems of Bombardier and all UK train manufacturers are caused by our failure to invest in the industry. That is not true: rail investment is running at unprecedented levels. Between 2000 and 2010, there will be £33 billion of direct investment. By 2005, the Government will be spending twice as much on rail as we did in 2001. This year we are spending £73 million a week on improving the railways, and bringing in a similar amount from the private sector.
	Rolling stock is getting its fair share of that money. We are in the middle of the biggest rolling-stock replacement programme ever seen in this country: some 40 per cent. is being replaced between 2000 and 2005. Since 1997 there have been 41 rolling-stock orders, representing nearly 4,500 vehicles. It is certainly not true that all the business has been going abroad, although I will deal later with some of my hon. Friend's worries in that regard. No fewer than 35 of those 41 orders have been won by UK-based companies, which means that three quarters of all vehicles ordered since 1997 have been built here. Bombardier has been much the most successful single firm, having won 28 orders and built nearly 2,500 vehicles—more than twice as many as its nearest rivals.
	My hon. Friend is worried about the scope for ensuring that UK investment benefits UK industry, but the answer cannot be insisting that rolling stock for use in the UK must be built here. Naturally people ask why we should insist that contracts go to UK manufacturers if taxpayers' money is used to buy the trains, whether directly or through the subsidies paid to train operators. The Government have a role in ensuring that there is a full and fair procurement process, but they cannot dictate where orders are placed or where vehicles are manufactured. The placing of orders is a matter for the train operators, and in many cases European Union procurement rules mean that orders cannot simply be directed to UK builders. Of course we want to see UK companies winning UK orders, but we also have a responsibility to taxpayers and fare-paying passengers to ensure that we get the best possible value for money when investing in new rolling stock.
	Competitive bids are the best way of guaranteeing that. Artificially restricting the number of firms allowed to bid is a sure way of driving costs up and getting poor value for money. It has been suggested, however, that even if we insist on awarding our own contracts fairly, the procedure may not always be followed so scrupulously elsewhere. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), and the trade unions have raised it as well. We are taking it very seriously. The Department for Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry are to look into the award of rolling-stock contracts in other EU states over the past seven years to establish whether a clear pattern can be identified. It is crucial that there be a level playing field across Europe.
	As I have already pointed out, most trains bought by British train operating companies in recent years have been built in Britain, but this is an area that warrants further investigation. The Chancellor announced in his recent speech at Bournemouth that the Government would review UK businesses' experiences, good and bad, of competing for public procurement contracts in other EU countries—

Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister has just made an important announcement. Can she give us any idea how long that inquiry will take, and when she expects the inquiry involving both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Transport to report?

Jacqui Smith: I cannot give an undertaking now about how long the inquiry will take because, as hon. Members have already pointed out, part of what we are talking about is people's feelings about the process. We want to try to identify where the evidence is, and decide what that evidence suggests to us.
	As I was saying, the Chancellor said that the Government would review UK businesses' experiences, good and bad, of competing for public procurement contracts in other EU countries. That will include their concerns about unfair application of rules, different approaches to the application of the single market and international rules on public procurement, and the impact that those have on contract opportunities for British manufacturers and their workers. The Chancellor will announce details of the review later in the year.
	From the success that Bombardier has enjoyed in recent years, I am convinced that its staff and management are well able to secure orders provided that they can compete fairly for them, and I am clear that ensuring that it can do so will prove a more effective way of securing the firm's future than seeking to skew the system artificially in its favour.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North also touched on a broader issue of public procurement. The award of rolling stock contracts is, as I have said, a commercial matter for transport network providers, but the Government have a role in ensuring that an open and competitive procurement process occurs, while not prescribing where orders should be placed or stock manufactured.
	We are keen to find ways of improving the way in which public procurement processes operate in this country, so that our manufacturing companies have the best possible opportunity to compete for business while delivering the best possible value for the taxpayer. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry hosted an event on 3 September that brought together representatives of manufacturing business, trade unions and Government to discuss practical steps that we can take to achieve that.
	That event, in which Bombardier participated, explored a range of issues that could help business to respond effectively to public procurement needs—for example, through better forward planning, greater transparency and increased professionalism in procurement and innovation. The Department of Trade and Industry is working with the Treasury and the Office of Government Commerce to ensure that the themes that came out of that event are used to inform the work that the OGC is taking forward in formulating an action plan for improving public procurement.
	Rail procurement by private sector operators was not a specific focus of the event, but I am sure that the lessons to be learned are equally applicable to private and public sector procurement.
	My hon. Friend asked about support for the company with regard to exports. UK trade and investment officials stand ready to provide help and advice, and are already in regular contact with Bombardier UK at the highest level. Indeed, Bombardier serves on UK Trade and Investment's rail sector advisory group, which helps to formulate UK Government export strategy, particularly in delivering Government support where the UK rail industry believes we can add value to its efforts in pursuing international business. I hope that, not only through that contribution but through the support that we can provide, that will help with those important export opportunities that my hon. Friend highlighted.
	I welcome my hon. Friend's raising this issue, which, as he and others have pointed out, is clearly of importance to the company and its Derby work force. I have given, I hope, some sign of Government support and action, and some reassurance about the current status of decision making, but that does not mean that there is any room for complacency. I shall certainly monitor the situation closely, and my officials will continue to work with the company on its future strategy.
	I must applaud the efforts of my hon. Friend, who is not only acting as a very important ambassador for the company and its work force, but talking to leading figures in the rail industry supply chain to try to help the company win further orders. That is practical and important work, and I can assure my hon. Friend of the Government's support in trying to find a way to achieve what we all want to see, which is the continuing efficient production of trains in his Derby constituency.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Five o'clock.